Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN

SUMMER TIME

The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported to the House, That its Address of 9 July relating to Summer Time had been presented to Her Majesty and that Her Majesty had been pleased to receive the same very graciously and to give the following Answer:

I have received your Address praying that the Summer Time Order 1992 be made in the form of the draft laid before your House.

I will comply with your request.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT (PENALTY FARES) BILL

Order for consideration of Lords amendments read.

To be considered tomorrow.

GREATER MANCHESTER (LIGHT RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM) (No. 4) BILL [Lords.]

LONDON DOCKLANDS RAILWAY (LEWISHAM, ETC.) (No. 2) BILL

PRICES'S PATENT CANDLE COMPANY LIMITED BILL [Lords]

Orders for Third Reading read.

To be read the Third time tomorrow.

RIVER HUMBER (UPPER PYEWIPE OUTFALL) BILL [Lords]

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered tomorrow.

LLANELLI BOROUGH COUNCIL (RIVER LLIEDI) BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — HEALTH

NHS Trusts

Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what restrictions exist on the number of pay beds in hospital trusts.

The Minister for Health (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): It is a statutory requirement that private practice in national health service trust hospitals does not significantly interfere with the performance, by the trust, of its obligations under NHS contracts or imposed by order. The actual number of private patient beds that may be made available at any one time is for local determination.

Mr. Williams: As trust hospitals are not required by law to make contracts with the NHS, and as private insurance companies are seeking a greater use of trust hospitals to reduce their premiums, is there not a danger that the number of private beds in those hospitals will dramatically increase without anyone being consulted? If the Government want us to believe that the NHS is safe in their hands, why do they not make the 10 per cent. limit for private beds that applies to health authority-managed hospitals apply also to trust hospitals?

Dr. Mawhinney: The hon. Gentleman's fears are unfounded, not least because the local population is protected by the purchasers who are responsible for purchasing health care on their behalf.

Ms. Harman: Is it not the case that the more hospital trusts such as Guy's hospital in London concentrate on private patients, the longer NHS patients like the Slennet family, whose case was reported recently in the newspapers, have to wait? The longer NHS patients must wait, the more they are forced to go private. To protect NHS services and justify the Minister's claims that trust hospitals are not about privatisation, will he impose a strict and specific limit on the proportion of private work that NHS trusts can do?

Dr. Mawhinney: The hon. Lady should be aware, better than most, that common waiting lists for urgent or seriously ill patients exist in all hospitals and that those arrangements were agreed with the medical profession. She should be aware also that there is a statutory requirement that private practice in hospital trusts must not interfere, to a significant extent, with performance under NHS contracts. The hon. Lady is trying to scare patients unnecessarily.

Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether special considerations can be applied to health units or organisations wishing to seek trust status in very rural areas; and if she will make a statement.

Dr. Mawhinney: No. Each application for trust status is measured against four main criteria: that the establishment of the trust will give clear benefits and improved quality of service to patients; that management has the necessary skills and capacity to operate independently;


that senior professional staff, particularly consultants, are involved in the management of the unit; and that the trust will be financially viable.

Mr. Kirkwood: But is there not a case for giving special consideration to small health board, district and regional health authority areas providing health care in disparate rural communities and, where they are performing well already, leaving well alone? In particular, what guidance is being given to those authorities in rural areas on the purchaser's ability to keep in touch with local communities so that they can deliver the kind of services that those communities seek?

Dr. Mawhinney: That is a perfectly fair question. I assure the hon. Gentleman that all purchasers have the responsibility to assess health needs and the preferences of the local population. That is true in both rural and urban areas. Given the distance that some patients may have to travel, purchasers in rural areas need to have particular regard to accessibility of services. Let me encourage the hon. Gentleman by giving him one example: a purchasing project in North Yorkshire, not far from the hon. Gentleman's constituency, covering about four and a half former districts, has developed 25 natural communities around which it has planned the sort of health care that the hon. Gentleman seeks.

Dame Jill Knight: Does my hon. Friend agree that when trust status is conferred on a hospital, the local people virtually run the hospital themselves and they, after all, know best?

Dr. Mawhinney: As is so frequently the case, my hon. Friend is exactly right.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Then how would the Minister explain the situation that has arisen in my area, which has a large rural contingent, where one fund-holding general practitioner can distort the provision of health care by demanding that the practice's patients go ahead of those of every non-fund-holding general practitioner?

Dr. Mawhinney: I have to say to the hon. Lady what I said to her last time, which is that I am not prepared to accept her interpretation of events. If the health authority has such a problem, it is perfectly free to get in touch with me.

Mr. David Martin: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospitals have now achieved trust status.

Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the national health service trust programme.

The Secretary of State for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): A total of 156 national health service trusts are currently operational and 151 applications have been received from hospitals and other units to become operational from April 1993 in the third wave of NHS trusts.

Mr. Martin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the result of the general election, particularly in Portsmouth, has led directly to applications for trust status there? As the British Medical Association has withdrawn its misguided opposition to that sensible policy, is it not high

time that the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats followed suit and stopped misrepresenting it as privatisation?

Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend is exactly right. Since the election, a great many people have said that the future lies in NHS trusts, which provide a better form of management. I was delighted to hear that the BMA chairman said:
The reforms exist. Our task must be to ensure that, for the sake of our patients, we do everything we can to make them work.
I visited the hospital where he works, which has become a trust, and was most impressed with its progress. I know that hospitals in my hon. Friend's constituency are applying for trust status in the next wave, with the warm support of the clinicians. I hope that the Labour party will be able to adopt a similar approach.

Mr. David Shaw: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that trust hospitals result in reduced waiting lists, an improved number of patient treatments and an improved quality of service? Therefore it is not surprising that Dover and Deal hospitals are applying for trust status to deliver to my constituents an even further improved quality of service.

Mrs. Bottomley: Trusts are cutting their waiting lists, improving the quality of service and increasing the number of patients treated. They are also a good place for the staff to work. There are overwhelming reasons for devolving the management of health care to the level nearest to that at which decisions on clinical work are undertaken. NHS trusts are the model for the future and provide important new freedoms. They are better for staff and for patients.

Mr. Robert Ainsworth: The Secretary of State will be aware that among the 151 third wave applications, there is one jointly made by the two Coventry hospitals, which want to become a single trust. Is she aware of fears that that will result in the closure of the Coventry and Warwickshire hospital and of the refusal by the management at either site to give any assurances? Will she ensure that there is full consideration and that the assurances sought are given before trust status is approved?

Mrs. Bottomley: I give the hon. Gentleman a clear assurance that the most important criterion for agreeing trust status is better service for patients. A trust must certainly be financially viable and there must be good management—under which clinicians and managers work closely together. The criterion for the future is improved services to patients and that is the basis on which decisions will be made.

Mrs. Bridget Prentice: Does the Secretary of State agree that the Guy's and Lewisham Trust is so strapped for cash that it is moving more and more towards private medicine? What reassurances can she give Lewisham families that they will not be forced into private health care, as was the Slennet family in my constituency so that they could have their child treated in a hospital?

Mrs. Bottomley: I have no time for the politics of envy, in which criteria for the success of the health service are judged against the work of the private sector. Frankly, that is immaterial. I want ever-greater improvements to the national health service. I ask the hon. Lady to re-examine


the situation at Guy's, which is paying its low-paid workers an extra £6 a week, is tackling junior hospital doctors' hours a year ahead of schedule, has made excellent inroads into waiting times and is treating more patients. Improved patient care, not the criterion of redundancies, should measure the national health service's success.

Mrs. Roe: Does my right hon. Friend recall a survey undertaken among trust patients at the beginning of this year, which showed that seven times as many thought that services had improved as a result of trust status as those who noted a decline? Does she agree that such noticeable gains should be spread further and wider throughout the health service?

Mrs. Bottomley: How much I welcome my hon. Friend's remarks; as ever, she hits the nail exactly on the head. We ought to consider the effect of trust status on patients and others who use the service. An independent survey published earlier this year showed that 96 per cent. of patients were very satisfied or quite satisfied with the quality of service that they received from NHS trusts.

Personal Social Services

Mr. Stevenson: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she last met the Association of Metropolitan Authorities to discuss its concerns regarding the personal social services.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tim Yeo): My hon. Friend the Minister for Health and I met representatives of the local authority associations, including the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, on 1 July.

Mr. Stevenson: Will the Minister acknowledge the continuing concern that is felt in Stoke-on-Trent and elsewhere about the Government's intentions for the funding of community care? What progress has been made in the Government's discussions with the AMA on the principle of ring-fencing community care resources? Given that these are the last health questions before the recess, will the Minister state clearly when an announcement will be made about the transfer of resources for social security purposes, and not allow human community care to be sacrificed on the altar of council tax, as it has been under the poll tax?

Mr. Yeo: The Government have made it clear on several occasions—and I gladly do so again—that community care policy will be fairly resourced and that local authorities will be given adequate money to implement it. I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern about ring-fencing. Staffordshire county council's record is a prime example of why ring-fencing might be needed. Throughout the 1980s, social services spending in Staffordshire was consistently below the level indicated by the Government's grant-related expenditure assessment. In the eight years from 1982 to 1990, its cumulative underspend was almost £50 million. Any shortage of resources in Staffordshire is nothing to do with the Government, who provide adequate and generous resources, but has everything to do with the county council's decisions.

Mr. Rowe: When my hon. Friend met representatives of the AMA, did he discuss the crucial importance of increasing opportunities for volunteers in the personal social services? There is no doubt that volunteering not only provides a remarkable service but prevents the many volunteers who have a valuable and important task to perform from becoming a charge on the personal social services themselves.

Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend is quite right. Indeed, he is a well-known expert in the field. We want to encourage all local authorities to maximise opportunities for volunteers which are useful to the volunteers themselves and to those whom they seek to serve. We are very concerned about the attitude of a few Labour-controlled local authorities, which are obstinately reluctant to increase usage of the independent sector.

Mr. Rooker: In view of today's devastating report from the Policy Studies Institute, which shows the total collapse of the Government's inner-city policies over the past 13 years, will the Minister join me in congratulating social workers on their work in inner-city areas? They sometimes enter unlit blocks of flats in dangerous circumstances to try to settle disputes of which they know nothing beyond what they have been told in a telephone call, and sometimes emerge with injuries. It is they, not Members of Parliament, who are on the front line.

Mr. Yeo: I gladly pay tribute to a number of local authority employees who work in inner-city areas. Their major handicap is the fact that too many inner-city local authorities are controlled by the loony left.

NHS (Expenditure)

Mr. Day: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how the proportion of the national income which is spent on the national health service has changed since 1979, and over the periods (a) 1974 to 1979 and (b) 1970 to 1974.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: The share of gross domestic product spent on the national health service from all sources has increased from 4·7 per cent. in 1978–79 to an estimated 5·8 per cent. this year—a rise of more than 1 per cent. Figures for the earlier period are not available on the same basis, but show a similar 1 per cent. increase in the share of GDP spent on the health service between 1970 and 1974. Between 1974 and 1979, however, health spending as a proportion of GDP rose by only 0·3 per cent.

Mr. Day: Will my right hon. Friend accept my congratulations—and, I believe, those of the whole House—on that record of achievement under Conservative control? Such a record was never matched or even dreamt of by the so-called friends of the NHS on the Opposition Benches.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that performance in the NHS can be measured not only by the amount that is spent but by the return in terms of health benefit? Does she feel that her recent White Paper will help to produce further achievements?

Mrs. Bottomley: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. Indeed, the purpose of our latest White Paper, "Health of the Nation", is precisely to maximise the health gain that is achievable for the nation. Inevitably, any Secretary of State must achieve best value for money, but


real health gains can be achieved through concentration on disease prevention and health promotion as well as on the delivery of services. We are in the business of health as well as health care.

Mr. Robin Cook: Before the Secretary of State disappears in a puff of complacency about her expenditure, may I invite her to report on her income? Will she admit that, since 1979, the rate of increase in charges to patients has been double the rate of increase in spending; that the increase in prescription charges has been eight times the rate of inflation; that pay bed charges have risen tenfold; and that, on top of that, any dental patient who seeks treatment must pay three times more—provided, of course, that he or she can find a dentist to provide treatment? If the Government really want us to believe that they are committed to the NHS, will they stop turning it into a pay-as-you-go service?

Mrs. Bottomley: Charges have been part of the NHS since its early days. We must ensure that we maximise its ability to provide high-quality services. We have never provided such good dental care; we have never immunised so many children; life expectancy has improved over the past 12 years. On a number of criteria, health has been improving through the achievement of good value for money.
I worked in the health service when the Labour party was in power. Then, it was not a case of putting cash before care; it was a case of cash-free, care-free national health service. Expenditure was cut in real terms.

Patients, Barnet

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospital patients were treated in the Barnet health authority in 1991–92.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville): I understand from locally provided figures that Barnet health authority purchased in-patient and day care treatment for 39,814 patients in the year 1991–92. This represents an overall increase of 3·4 per cent. over the previous year.

Mr. Marshall: Will my hon. Friend join me in thanking the staff, nurses and doctors who made that record achievement possible? Will he also note that one of the hospitals that made that achievement possible was the Royal Free trust hospital which, in its first year as a trust, treated 6 per cent. more patients and cut waiting lists substantially? Is my hon. Friend aware that the hospital waiting lists in Barnet are much better than those laid down in the guidelines in the citizens charter?

Mr. Sackville: I certainly join my hon. Friend in that. I remind him that on I May no one was waiting for more than two years for in-patient treatment in Barnet health authority, that the number of patients waiting between one and two years was down by 66 per cent. and that the health authority's aim by December 1992 is to reduce the maximum waiting time to nine months for general surgery and several other specialties.

Health Education Budget

Mr. Foulkes: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her budget for health education for 1992–93; and what is the change since 1991–92 in real terms.

Dr. Mawhinney: We have provided £33·9 million for the health education authority in 1992–93, a real increase of 5·2 per cent. on the previous year. This is more than matched by health education of literally incalculable value throughout the national health service, sustained by the successive real increases in funding provided by the Government.

Mr. Foulkes: Is not that a paltry sum compared with the £72 million spent by the tobacco industry each year on recruiting new customers to take the place of those whom it kills off? Will the Government reconsider the question of an advertising ban and ensure that shopkeepers who sell cigarettes to children are prosecuted?

Dr. Mawhinney: The hon. Gentleman must focus his mind on the ends and not the means to the ends. The ends are that cigarette consumption in this country has decreased substantially over the past few years. The targets that we set in the White Paper suggest that tobacco consumption will drop even further in the years ahead. We have made that commitment. The means to achieve that end will be reviewed constantly, to ensure that it is achieved. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not know that the Children and Young Persons (Protection From Tobacco) Act 1991 addresses precisely the concern that he expressed.

Mr. Sims: Does my hon. Friend recall that at the time of the scares about salmonella and listeria there was criticism of his Department for lack of action and of any sense of urgency, yet when he issues a White Paper pointing out to people the need to pay particular attention to sensible drinking and a balanced diet and to cease smoking, he and our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health are accused of interfering and nannying? Will he ensure that adequate resources are made available so that although people remain free to make their own choices in these matters, they can make informed choices?

Dr. Mawhinney: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Government have a responsibility to set before the public information on which they may wish to draw in making individual decisions about individual lifestyles. We are not in the business of nannying. However, we are in the business of discharging our responsibilities to put before people the sort of information that we believe they need and which would give them, if they were to follow it, a better quality of life.

Mr. Robin Cook: Does the Minister recognise that the end that the tobacco industry hopes to achieve by advertising is to encourage people to take up smoking? Why does he not adopt, as one of his means, the banning of tobacco advertising? Is not the real reason to be found in Rothmans' annual report, out this month, which shows that Rothmans gave £100,000 to the Tory party in this election year? Can we really expect the Tory party to take on the tobacco barons so long as they are taking their money?

Dr. Mawhinney: If they were the ends of the tobacco companies, measured against the fall in the consumption of tobacco in the past few years, they have not met those ends—on the contrary. The Government will meet the ends that they have set out by way of targets in the White Paper. It is a matter of great sadness that on his last appearance at the Dispatch Box—almost certainly, dealing with these matters—the hon. Gentleman will not commit the Labour party to achieving the same ends, which will benefit the health of the whole nation.

Education Nursing Service

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the education nursing service under the health service reforms.

Mr. Sackville: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has just written congratulating the profession on the centenary of the education nursing service. In "The Health of the Nation" White Paper we emphasise how important the establishment of healthy lifestyles in childhood is to health promotion. School nurses have much to contribute here—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. I hope that hon. Members on the Opposition Benches below the Gangway will allow us to hear what the Minister has to say.

Mr. Sackville: School nurses have much to contribute here and we will be monitoring their vital involvement in the implementation of our health strategy.

Mr. Winterton: May I advise my hon. Friend that, despite what he may hear, I shall be taking an increased interest in health matters. Having just told the House how important the education nursing services are to education and to the health service, will he tell us who will pay for the vital services under the new provider-purchaser system—the Department for Education or the Department of Health?

Mr. Sackville: May I have the honour of congratulating my hon. Friend on his years of service on the Select Committee on Health? I look forward to his many further contributions.
I stress the importance of the education nursing service. It is up to health authorities to provide adequate cover for the monitoring of school children's health. We must accept that the number of school nurses has remained constant against a background of massive extra GP provision as well as special child surveillance clinics, and the fact that the overall health of children has markedly improved in recent years.

Patients

Mr. Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients were treated in national health service hospitals in the most recent year for which figures are available; and what were the comparable figures for 1978.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: A record 8·8 million patients were treated as in-patients and day cases in 1990–91 compared with 6·5 million in 1978. That represented a 34 per cent. increase.

Mr. Knox: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the figures provide strong evidence of the improvement and

expansion of the national health service since the Government came into office? Will she confirm that the increase in the number of patients treated has been faster since the national health service reforms were introduced?

Mrs. Bottomley: Indeed, I can confirm that. I have already made it clear that the rate of increase in the number of patients treated has doubled since the Government came to power, as opposed to when the Opposition were in power. There has been an increase of something like 7 per cent. since the introduction of the NHS reforms. There can be no doubt that, on any test, the NHS reforms have resulted in improvements to the quality of health care.

Mrs. Golding: Is the Minister aware of the unacceptable delays occurring yet again at the Birmingham children's hospital? Is she aware that Andrew Brown, a 10-year-old boy in my constituency, has been waiting more than a year for serious open heart surgery? Having been told to prepare himself to go into hospital tomorrow for surgery, he received a message yesterday that he could no longer go in. Two days' notice was given of the cancellation. His parents are distraught as they have been preparing him for weeks. When will we learn to treat our children properly? When will we do something about the Birmingham children's hospital?

Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Lady illustrates exactly why it is so important for us to tackle waiting times, and why the achievements of the last year, with the number of those waiting more than a year falling by one third, are so important. All the cases are individual cases like the one to which the hon. Lady refers. That is why the achievement of reducing those waiting more than two years from 51,000 to under 2,000 has been so important. With regard to the individual case that the hon. Lady mentioned, I shall make inquiries myself on her behalf. She has mentioned one case: we are anxious to ensure that all NHS patients are seen as swiftly as possible, and we have made real progress in achieving that.

Heart Campaign

Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has had about the Look After Your Heart campaign.

Dr. Mawhinney: The Look After Your Heart campaign, jointly funded by the Department of Health and the Health Education Authority, is one of the largest and most comprehensive coronary heart disease prevention programmes in the world. It includes a wide range of preventive activity. I am not aware of representations on a large scale on any particular aspect of the programme.

Mr. Thurnham: Does my hon. Friend agree that we should use our heads to look after our hearts? Will the congratulate Bolton health authority on its pioneering initiative to promote the sale of fresh fruit and vegetables through cut-price co-ops. Should not others follow that example?

Dr. Mawhinney: I am sure that my hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have heard about the project not only from him but from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, and I am happy to commend those who have taken that important initiative.

Patients Charter

Mr. Cummings: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the progress being made within the national health service to put the patients charter into practice.

Mr. Sackville: The national health service has made substantial progress in implementing the patients charter, which came into effect on 1 April.
NHS staff at all levels have given the patients charter a warm welcome. Their response and commitment to providing a high-quality health service as embodied by the patients charter is to be applauded.

Mr. Cummings: Does the Minister really believe what he has just told the House? If so, how does he square his remarks with the case of the 19-year-old youth in my area who has had his operation cancelled four times since March, on the last occasion at three hours' notice? Will he now admit to the House that his charter is a con trick and a sham?

Mr. Sackville: The more I hear Opposition Members trying to denigrate the patients charter, the more confident I am that we are very much on the right track. In the case of operations that are cancelled—often unavoidably, as a result of emergencies and so on—we have given specific guidance in the patients charter to the effect that all such operations should be given priority wherever possible.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: Does my hon. Friend agree that GPs themselves will play an important role in pursuing the patients charter? Is he aware that, in my constituency, no less than 78 per cent. of the population will be dealt with by GP fund holders by the end of this year? Is not that an example of the way that doctors are taking advantage of the Government's health reforms to provide better services for their patients?

Mr. Sackville: I agree with my hon. Friend. GP fund holding gives an opportunity to respond directly to patients' needs.

Ms. Lynne: The first right in the patients charter is the right to health care based on clinical need, regardless of ability to pay. Given that there are only 55 salaried dentists in the country, will the Minister explain how the Government can meet their obligation if there is a mass exodus of dentists from the NHS?

Mr. Sackville: I should like to make two points. First, family health services authorities have a responsibility to provide an NHS dentist to anyone in their area who needs one. Secondly, I remind the hon. Lady of the fundamental review announced in the past two days, which will ensure that we shall not arrive at this situation with dentists again.

Miss Emma Nicholson: I recognise the excellence of the patients charter, but does the Minister agree that patients and their families have an obligation to ensure that public money is well spent and that many operations are delayed because patients do not turn up—either to an appointment or for the operation itself.

Mr. Sackville: We have made it very clear through the patients charter that we believe that it is a two-way street: the patients have responsibilities as well as the health service. The public can do many things to improve health.

Community Care

Mr. Kevin Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the preparations of the national health service for its role in the provision of community care services after April 1993.

Mrs. Mahon: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the preparations the national health service has made for its role in the provision of community care services after April 1993.

Mr. Yeo: The national health service is working closely with local authorities to play its part in ensuring the successful introduction of the "Caring for People" reforms.

Mr. Hughes: Will the Minister tell the House who will pay for the extra community nurses who will be needed to care for the ill and frail elderly people who are being sent out of hospitals too soon by doctors who are under pressure from administrators who want to increase their bed-throughput to achieve the targets required by the Government's new market economy in health care?

Mr. Yeo: As an important plank in our community care reforms, we have made it clear that all health authorities must agree with social services departments robust arrangements for the discharge of patients and that a care plan in respect of each patient who is about to be discharged must be agreed. With regard to resourcing, as we have made clear on many occasions, there will not only be a transfer of resources from the Department of Social Security to increase resources available to local authorities, but continuing increases in the nearly £5 billion of personal social services expenditure available to local authorities every year.

Mrs. Mahon: Will the Minister take time to study the report by the Royal College of Nursing entitled "A Scandal Waiting to Happen"? Will he assure the House that he intends to act on some of that report's recommendations, not least in respect of the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes), about the inappropriate discharge of elderly people into a community which does not have the resources to care for them?

Mr. Yeo: We have studied the report to which the hon. Lady refers. I can assure her that we will certainly take into account the nursing needs of all elderly people in residential and nursing home care, when decisions about that care are made and when the local authorities enter into contracts for the arrangement of such care.

Mr. David Atkinson: Can my hon. Friend confirm that after 1 April next, every mentally ill patient and schizophrenia sufferer discharged from hospital can be guaranteed a package of care in the community best fitted to their needs? In that event, should we tolerate older hospitals for the mentally ill being kept open for a minute longer?

Mr. Yeo: I am aware of my hon. Friend's very close interest in mental illness and schizophrenia. I am glad to be able to inform him that from last April, under the care programme approach, all health authorities are required


to initiate individually tailored care programmes on the basis of a full assessment for all in-patients about to be discharged from mental illness hospitals.

Information Disclosure

Mr. Fatchett: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations she has received about the employment protection of national health service staff who disclose information about internal affairs within the national health service, other than information related to patient confidentiality.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Representations have been received recently from hon. Members, staff representative associations, and national health service employees. These have concerned both the general principles governing expression by NHS staff of professional concerns about health service issues, and the personal cases of some NHS employees.

Mr. Fatchett: Is the Secretary of State aware of the case [Interruption.]——

Madam Speaker: Order. I should be much obliged if the House would settle down. It is impossibly noisy and very hard work for hon. Members who are trying to ask questions and for Ministers who are trying to reply.

Mr. Fatchett: Is the Secretary of State aware of the case of Dr. Chris Chapman, a biochemist who faces redundancy tomorrow at the Leeds general infirmary? His only offence was to tell the truth about scientific fraud and financial irregularities. While Dr. Chapman is to be sacked, those who have committed the frauds and financial irregularities will remain in their jobs. They prosper and have been promoted. They include Mr. Stuart Ingham. the £90,000-a-year chief executive of the Leeds General Infirmary Trust. Will the Secretary of State now agree to set up a full public inquiry into Dr. Chapman's case? Or is she just happy to see a man of integrity lose his job, pension and livelihood while those responsible for his sacking remain in their posts and prosper?

Mrs. Bottomley: The matters to which the hon. Gentleman refers have, of course, been investigated by the independent auditors, and any new evidence has also been referred to them. It would be quite inappropriate for me to instigate an inquiry into an individual case where there are already statutory rights of appeal. Dr. Chapman has the right to take his case to an industrial tribunal. He has a right of appeal under the Employment Protection Act 1975, which I understand he has not yet exercised. Until he has done so, it certainly would not be appropriate to discuss the matter in the House.

Immunisation

Mrs. Gillan: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made towards reaching national targets for immunisation against the major childhood diseases.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I am pleased to say that the latest estimates show that we have passed the national immunisation coverage target of 90 per cent., which was set in 1985.

Mrs. Gillan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the GP contract which the Labour party opposed has been remarkably successful in improving the rate of child immunisation?

Mrs. Bottomley: It has been remarkably successful, and GPs are to be congratulated on 90 per cent. of them reaching targets and 70 per cent. reaching higher targets. This might be the last moment for the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) at health questions to say that he was wrong when he said that those targets were too heroic. The GP contract has led to benefits in the services delivered by general practitioners. They have done excellently in immunisation; they have done excellently in cancer screening and that bodes very well indeed for our strategy under "Health of the Nation".

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Bowis: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 July.

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Bowis: Does my right hon. Friend agree that some people have still not learnt the lesson that real and lasting growth can come only with an economy that is based on low taxation and low inflation? Is not that the reason why last week's figures were so good? Will my right hon. Friend keep at it and ensure that his election pledge to lick inflation is fulfilled?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely right about that. I want to ensure that our record on inflation in the 1990s exceeds that of the 1980s, that we get inflation down to the lowest possible level and that we keep it there. Economic policy is geared to that end.

Mr. Kinnock: Does the Prime Minister recall his promise in the election that a Tory victory would provide the spark to ignite recovery? Will the Prime Minister now admit that no such ignition has taken place and that there will be no real recovery as long as he continues with the policies that have already brought us two full years of recession?

The Prime Minister: I shall turn to the right hon. Gentleman's point in a moment, if I may, for this is the last occasion that we will be able to exchange comments over the Dispatch Box in this fashion. We have done so on many occasions in the past 20 months. We have often disagreed, sometimes we have agreed, but I should like to thank the right hon. Gentleman—[HON. MEMBERS: He's going to resign."] That is quite wrong; I am staying.
I should like to thank the right hon. Gentleman for his support at times of crisis, for his strong support throughout the Gulf war and for the support that he has given us throughout the difficulties in Yugoslavia. On many occasions when he and I have had to deal privately with matters, without exception he has respected the


confidences of those occasions. I am very pleased to have the opportunity to thank him for that and to do so publicly and with warmth.
In direct response to the right hon. Gentleman's question, he will know the view of the OECD and of the London business school, both of whose latest surveys forecast that recovery will be under way from the second quarter of this year. We share that view.

Mr. Kinnock: I am grateful to the Prime Minister for his kind remarks. I consider it a great honour to have been able to serve my country in the way that I could. I know that he shares that vocation, and I hope that the country and its people can achieve greater success in the future.
I put it to the Prime Minister that his strategy of perpetuating recession, combined with high unemployment, in an attempt to suppress inflation, has all the features of the slump of the 1930s. For the sake of our country, I put it to him that he should now recognise that continuation of those policies will not achieve durable or sustainable recovery, and will certainly not put our country at ease with itself.

The Prime Minister: I respect the view that the right hon. Gentleman expresses, but I say in all sincerity that I cannot agree with him. The recovery—the jobs, the prosperity and the security—that everyone in this House wants for all our citizens can be based only on sustainable growth and low inflation. Unless we have low inflation as a base, we shall not get a form of growth that is sustainable. I realise that it is not easy, that it is uncomfortable and that it is frustrating when growth does not appear immediately, but I know of no other way to ensure the medium and long-term growth and prosperity of the nation, and I am determined to stick to the policies that I believe to be in our medium and long-term interests.

Mr. Kinnock: May I say to the Prime Minister, with equal sincerity, that, after two years of recession, there is a very great danger that continuation of the present policies will risk driving the economy down so far as to make the prospect of recovery recede by years. I hope that the Prime Minister will use this summer to think again about the course of that policy and will adopt different policies that can give this country and its people the chance of jobs, growth and success, which we have not enjoyed in the immediate past.

The Prime Minister: The Leader of the Opposition and I agree about what the objective is, but I regret that we do not agree about the basis that is necessary to achieve it. One needs to look at what is happening. The volume of exports was at a record level in May; our volume share of world trade has recovered, after being in decline for many years; car sales are increasing; producer price inflation is at a very low level indeed. The ingredients are there. I return to the independent view of both the OECD and the London business school that recovery will be under way in the second half of this year. And it will be recovery based on a rate of inflation that is far lower than anyone in this House predicted 18 months ago. It is from that base that we shall get the growth that we all wish to see.

Sir Michael Marshall: In a week that marks the 75th birthday of the British space pioneer Arthur C. Clarke and his visit to the House of Commons will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity of assuring the House that during our presidency of the EC Her Majesty's

Government will make every effort to take initiatives in the space field to improve the quality of life and assist British industry?

The Prime Minister: I think I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. I welcome the visit of Mr. Clarke to the House. We shall continue to take initiatives, within Europe, internationally and in other forums, in pursuit of space priorities. We are particularly interested in the development of Earth observation systems for the monitoring of the environment and of climate change.

Mr. John D. Taylor: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Taylor: May I take this opportunity to register the thanks of the Ulster Unionist party to the Leader of the main Opposition party for the leadership he has given to Her Majesty's Opposition. It has been a privilege to work with him in recent years.
Now that the inter-party talks on Northern Ireland have advanced to strands 2 and 3, in which Her Majesty's Government are no longer in the chair but are equal partners with the other participants, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he recognises that progress towards real understanding, recognition and mutual respect in the island of Ireland depends upon the removal of articles 2 and 3 from the constitution of the southern Irish republic? Will Her Majesty's Government take the opportunity available to them in strands 2 and 3 to request the Dublin Government to remove their constitutional claim over that part of the United Kingdom known as Northern Ireland?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that articles 2 and 3 are important ingredients in the progress that has to be made. I welcome the talks at Lancaster House last week and I look forward to further substantive talks in Belfast later this week. This is an historic opportunity. I have made that clear to the Taoiseach. I think that he shares that view. He was generous enough to do so in a joint message just a few days ago. It would not be helpful for anyone to say a great deal about the talks while they continue, not least because the participants have agreed on the vital importance of confidentiality. But the talks have gone further than many imagined. The position is more hopeful than it has been for many years. We must all hope that the talks can make further progress.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Thompson: In the light of the harrowing plight of the children of Sarajevo, is there any immediate prospect of medical assistance being sent or provided to help with the terrible suffering which is occurring there?

The Prime Minister: Some progress has beeen made this morning. I am pleased to be able to tell my hon. Friend that a team of eight doctors and nurses from the South Manchester accident and rescue team is assembling its emergency supplies. Subject to the necessary clearance from the United Nations, which we expect to receive shortly, the team will fly out to Zagreb later today or


tomorrow. It will link up with the United Nations and United Kingdom medical teams already in the area. l t will be there both to offer immediate medical assistance as required and to report back to me with an on-the-spot assessment of the best way in which we can help those tragic children.

Mr. Ashdown: In view of the Prime Minister's previous statements, can he deny that unemployment will be at or through 3 million by Christmas?

The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, no Minister of any Government has made projections of unemployment. I do not intend to start. We shall have some more figures later this week. The right hon. Gentleman will be able to make his own assessment.

Mr. Alan Howarth: Does my right hon. Friend recall the words of the former leader of the Labour party that
inflation is the father and mother of unemployment"?
Does he agree that inflation is a social as well as economic evil that has dogged this country for a generation? Does he accept that he has wide support in the country in his determination to seize the opportunity that we have now to defeat inflation decisively?

The Prime Minister: I believe that my hon. Friend is right. I well recall the quotation that he uses. We have the headline rate of inflation down to 3·9 per cent. and the underlying rate of inflation effectively down to 4·8 per cent. Both are falling. That is very welcome news indeed.

Mr. Cummings: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Cummings: Is the Prime Minister aware that tens of thousands of chronically sick and disabled people are awaiting the determination of their application for disability living allowance? Is he further aware that, following a period of 10 months, the family of a late constituent of mine received a determination two days after the lady died? What does the Prime Minister intend to do about that disgraceful state of affairs?

The Prime Minister: We seek to process such applications as speedily as possible. The Benefits Agency is examining the difficulty and putting in staff to address it as speedily as possible.

Mr. Devlin: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Devlin: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the great pride in the north-east of England that Britain is shortly to become once again a net exporter of cars? Is not that a tribute to both the motor industry in general, which has restructured in the past few years, and to the Government's success in attracting inward investment to Britain?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I believe that the attraction of inward investment is very important. Among other things, it relies on very low inflation and stable economic policies which do not change and are well understood. There is no doubt that the British car industry has made excellent progress in improving competitiveness and significantly reducing the balance of payments deficit on trade in the automotive industry. In welcoming that, I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of inward investment, most notably, in that instance, in the motor car industry from Japan.

Mr. Turner: Is the Prime Minister aware that his notion of the freedom to choose is an empty gesture to millions of people in this country? When they have paid their electric, water and gas bills, they find that they have nothing left for the simple pleasures of life. When will he do something to help those people, instead of helping the better off whom his Government have always helped?

The Prime Minister: I am not sure that that is the invariable view of people who would call themselves better off. Of course we are concerned to help people who find themselves in such difficulties, and our policies have done so consistently during the past 12 years. What the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends do not like is choice itself. That is why they did not want to sell council houses, why they did not want people to choose what schools they have, and why they do not like choice in health. The truth is that when people choose, they choose conservatism and not socialism.

Madam Speaker: I should be obliged if those hon. Members who are leaving the Chamber would do so quietly or resume their seats, as we have a statement.

British Rail (Privatisation)

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John MacGregor): With permission, I should like to make a statement about the Government's proposals for the privatisation of British Rail, which are set out in a White Paper published today.
Under Conservative Governments, there have been many examples of the benefits which privatisation has brought to former nationalised industries. It has taken different forms in different industries, but common objectives have been the harnessing of the management flair and enterprise of the private sector, the application of the disciplines and incentives of the marketplace, the opportunities for private finance and for greater competition and choice which privatisation brings, all to provide better services for the public.
The Government believe that it is now time to extend those benefits to the railways. British Rail is dependent on substantial subsidy from Government and makes large losses so it is not possible to sell all of BR, either as a single entity, or as separate businesses. But our objectives, of improved efficiency, of new incentives for operators to provide the services which the customer wants, and of new opportunities for the railways can all be achieved in other ways than a single outright sale, and that is the purpose of our proposals. Altogether, they comprise the most radical changes to Britain's railways since 1948, but our flexible and practical approach to change will ensure that they are workable and realistic.
First, our proposals provide a variety of opportunities for the private sector. For passenger services, the Government have decided that the most effective way is through franchising, enabling private sector companies to bid for the management and operation of passenger services, in return for grants where necessary. Franchisees will be required to meet specific standards of service, which will be set out in their contracts.
Franchising will be carried out progressively and flexibly. The Government intend that in due course all BR's existing passenger services should be franchised to private operators. The establishment of local or regionally based franchises will help to revive local pride and identity.
Secondly, BR's existing freight and parcels business will be sold to the private sector. Thirdly, we will additionally provide a new right of access to the rail network for private operators of both freight and passenger services. We want as much freight as possible to be carried by rail rather than road; these new opportunities should help to bring this about.
Fourthly, to facilitate those new arrangements there will be a new structure for the railways. BR will be divided into two separate parts. One will become a track authority—Railtrack—with responsibility for all track and infrastructure. The other will become a residual operating company responsible for operating the passenger services which are not yet franchised. When franchising is complete, BR's sole function will be as Railtrack.
Fifthly, we will set up two separate independent authorities responsible to Government: one, a new franchising authority responsible for negotiating, awarding and monitoring franchises; and the other, a new rail regulator to oversee the application of arrangements for

track access and charging, to promote competition, prevent abuse of monopoly power and promote the interests of customers.
Sixthly, we will provide opportunities for the private sector to purchase or lease stations, which will bring benefits to passengers, operators as well as to others. Finally, we will substantially alter and improve grant arrangements. At present, a single grant is paid to BR to provide supported passenger services. Under the new franchising regime, by contrast, grants will be made for individual services or groups of services. This will be more transparent and will enable the taxpayer to know precisely what services his grant is buying.
The Government will introduce legislation to implement the proposals later in the year. In the longer term, the Government would like to see the private sector owning as much as possible of the railway. We therefore propose to take powers in the legislation to allow the future privatisation of all BR's track and operations.
There are a number of other vital points I should stress. In developing the proposals, safety has been of paramount concern. The Government are committed to ensuring that their proposals will not lead to any weakening of the high standards of safety on our railways. Operators will have to meet strict safety requirements overseen by the Health and Safety Executive. I have been advised in the framing of the proposals by the Health and Safety Commission, and it will be making detailed recommendations for the appropriate safety arrangements.
We fully recognise the importance of regional and commuter services to the people who depend on them. The Government have throughout made it clear that we are committed to continuing support for socially necessary passenger services. The statutory procedures for any closure proposals will be retained.
British Rail has made significant improvements in recent years. Investment in the railways has greatly increased. The productivity of the British Rail work force is among the highest of any European railways. I pay tribute to the considerable efforts of everyone in British Rail in bringing that about. Private sector involvement will help develop the quality and quantity of rail services even further. There will now be new opportunities for those who work in the railways and I want to ensure that they are able to benefit from them. The existing work force will be able to transfer to new companies when they are established, and there will be opportunities for employees to take a stake in their industry when they are in the private sector. Management-employee bids for franchises will be encouraged and assistance will be given to staff seeking to make such bids. Pension rights and entitlements to concessionary travel for present employees will be safeguarded.
The detailed proposals I am now putting forward are based on our election manifesto commitments. I look forward to working with the chairman of British Rail, with whom I have agreed new objectives for him to implement; and all those in the industry to bring about the changes I have outlined. Our aim is simple: to improve the quality of railway services for the travelling public and the freight customer. Improved quality of service will make the railways more attractive, improve their competitiveness, and enable them to take full advantage of the new opportunities open to them. I commend the proposals to the House.

Mr. John Prescott: This White Paper has been subjected to more delays and cancellations than the average commuter train on the Government's rail services. After 10 years of ideological rhetoric from numerous Secretaries of State for Transport, we have a White Paper that reflects a clash of reality with rhetoric. Its 20 pages are concerned more with presentation than with substance.
It appears that we can be thankful that the White Paper rejects past solutions and that there is to be no wholesale sell-off of British Rail, no regional break-up and no sell-off of the passenger sectors. But unfortunately, there is no recognition of the way in which a modern railway system can meet the transport needs of an economy which is increasingly plagued with mounting congestion and environmental costs.
The White Paper is no passengers charter, judged even by the Government's limited standards. It is more a cherry-pickers charter—ripe for exploitation by property speculators, by route operators bribed by public subsidies and, inevitably, by Tories' City friends growing fat on commissions and fees—[Interruption.]—resulting from the disposal of public assets. That has been the real record of the privatisation of every public utility under the Conservatives—higher prices and higher profits, all paid for through higher prices paid by the consumer.
The White Paper is irrelevant to the requirements of the railways for financial support, an adequate infrastructure and rolling stock investment, as evidenced by the excellent publicly owned railway systems in Europe. They have shown not only that sufficient financial resources are needed but that investment can produce a modern railway system, even when owned by the state. It is equally irrelevant to the needs of the economy, with millions of people unemployed, the nation diving into deeper recession, a collapsing infrastructure and a declining investment base.
The White Paper takes Britain in the opposite direction to that of our European partners, which in the last 10 years have invested billions of pounds in their railways' rolling stock and infrastructure, allowing for sufficient financial support, while we, over the same period, have reduced support by billions of pounds, providing a more costly railway system of lesser quality. That is the reality of 10 to 13 years of Tory railways policy.
I was pleased to hear the Secretary of State acknowledge the recent Economist intelligence unit report, which made a comparison between British Rail and railway systems in Europe. It revealed the levels of efficiency and productivity and placed British Rail among the top three in Europe. Everyone should acknowledge the contribution made by the workers and management to achieve that position.
That report showed that quality and reliability of service had been achieved through the resources provided by other European countries for investment in their railway systems. It also pointed out that the sums available for the railways from the private sector, by way of private loans or leasing, made an important contribution to the quality of their railway services.
Will the Secretary of State say, as he is considering a leasing arrangement for private operators, whether British Rail will be allowed to lease its trains, as is the case in most European railway systems? Is he aware that, if he does not

allow that to happen, it will be felt that there is an ideological prejudice against British Rail, and that that will prevent our system from being improved?
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that bus deregulation and privatisation, on which much of the White Paper is modelled, has led to a reduction in the number of passengers travelling by bus, to a lowering of services, to older vehicles being in service because of a failure to invest, to the need for heavier subsidies and to increased fares? Is that what the right hon. Gentleman intends for our railway system? Does he think that that is the way forward to create a modern railway system for Britain? Is it not a fact that a reduction in standards has resulted from most privatisation exercises?
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept the evidence of conflict between a business-led railway and the high safety standards necessary for passengers, a point emphasised by safety inspectors in their conclusions following inquiries into terrible railway tragedies that have occurred in this country, connected directly to a lack of resources in the railway system?
Will he now accept that the new Health and Safety Executive authority, about which he talks in the White Paper, should become totally independent of the Department of Transport? Will he assure the House that he intends to make it totally independent rather than answerable in the last resort to his Department, as it is now?
What will be the total cost to the taxpayer of the extra personnel and bureaucracy in the various authorities that he is to establish to discipline the market? Will the estimated £10 billion that could be raised from the sale of British Rail stations be made available to British Rail to invest in its track, rather than simply go to the Treasury, as has happened in previous privatisations? What are the Government's estimates of the investment needed in the infrastructure in the next five years? Does he accept British Rail's chairman's statement that he still needs, even under those plans, at least £1 billion from the Government each year for the next 10 years?
The White Paper will not increase our railway services, but will cut the rail network. It will not modernise the railways but will privatise bits of it. It will not produce new trains but will mean new paint on old trains. It will not integrate our rail and other transport systems but will disintegrate them through competition and selling off profitable parts. Furthermore, it will not help to reduce the massive congestion and environmental damage that a modern railway system in a modern economy can contribute to reducing.

Mr. MacGregor: I shall take as many of those points, one by one, as possible.
Since the election, there have been no delays in bringing forward the White Paper. We made our position clear during the election and the proposals are based on our manifesto. It is nonsense to say that the White Paper is presentation rather than substance. The hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) well knows that it contains a great deal of detail, but I am the first to acknowledge that, in working through some of the proposals, it is clear that much more work remains to be done. Naturally, we must have a Bill, which will take a considerable time to pass through both Houses, and it will


be possible to go into much more detail then. The White Paper has the full support of the Cabinet, and the entire Cabinet is fully behind the proposals.
May I deal with one of the hon. Gentleman's critical points and return to his rhetoric at the end? He put much emphasis on finance, and I agree that levels of efficiency and productivity in BR have greatly improved thanks to many of the steps that we have taken, as well as those that the BR management board and employees have taken. I have accepted that, and have already said so. However, as most passengers and potential freight operators would acknowledge, that does not mean that there is not scope for much more improvement, which is what our proposals are designed to achieve.
The hon. Gentleman makes a great mistake by putting the entire focus on expenditure. He said that, if only we would spend more, everything would be all right. Substantial investment is and has been going into British Rail. There is now a record level of capital investment of more than £1 billion, which is the highest in real terms since 1962, when the network was much more extensive. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman acknowledges that. We spent more than £1 billion last year, too. The answer to one of his last points is that, as he knows, we operate only within the confines of the public expenditure White Paper, but it is clear that the current White Paper contains considerably more investment.
It is not only additional money that matters but how that money is used to ensure more effective value for money and better services that are more oriented towards the customer. That is what our proposals are designed to do. The hon. Gentleman implies that the Labour party would have spent much more on British Rail, whereas we know perfectly well from comments by the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) that the hon. Gentleman would not be permitted to spend more from public resources on British Rail. The hon. Gentleman pretends that he would spend more and criticises us for not spending more, when he would not spend more.
The hon. Gentleman tries to get out of that by saying that private sector finance can be additional. But there too, as I have tried to point out to the hon. Gentleman, and as I have no doubt his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East will point out to him, he runs into a trap. It is perfectly reasonable to have a lease from the private sector if that leasing company is private-sector financed, but if it is public-sector money in the leasing company, or in any borrowing, it is public-sector money borrowed from the private sector that is effectively at risk. That has to be included within the overall public sector expenditure total. At the end of the day, there is a Government guarantee that that money will be repaid. Sometimes the debt is written off, so there is a real cost to the public purse; and there are also high financing charges.
The hon. Gentleman gave France as an example. At present, SNCF has a debt of about £9 billion after a recent debt write-off of £3·8 billion—

Mr. Bob Cryer: So what?

Mr. MacGregor: "So what," the hon. Gentleman says. That is a direct cost to the taxpayer. That compares with a debt for British Rail of about £2 billion.

Mr. Prescott: That is nonsense.

Mr. MacGregor: It is not nonsense. The hon. Gentleman clearly does not understand. He would happily remove all controls over public sector finance and let it rip. No wonder the electorate rejected him at the election.
Another factor is the annual interest payments for financing that ever-increasing debt. As a percentage of turnover, the annual interest payment in SNCF is 20 per cent.; for British Rail, it is just over 2 per cent. Somebody is paying the high cost of that high borrowing by SNCF.
If the hon. Gentleman is looking to some of those other financing arrangements as a way out, he is barking up the wrong tree. That is why our proposals will put genuine private finance into the operation, genuinely done.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the conflict between safety and privatisation. I see no conflict because we shall insist on strict safety standards, just as we did on the privatisation of British Airways. There is no reason why such safety standards cannot operate equally on the rails.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the extra cost of the authorities. I can assure him that I intend to keep them as slim as possible. I do not yet have a figure forthe cost, but we shall be developing that during the months ahead.
The hon. Gentleman talked about British Rail stations, and quoted a figure of £10 billion. In terms of the likely return of proceeds in the comparatively near to medium-term future, that figure is way over the top. We must be realistic about the level of proceeds from the sale or leasing of stations, and I do not think that it will be anything on that scale. Finally, the hon. Gentleman talked about the infrastructure over the next five years, and I have already dealt with that.
The old rhetoric comes not from the Conservative but from the Labour Benches. The hon. Gentleman no doubt said the same in 1979 about what privatisation would achieve in the 46 major state industries which have been privatised. We all know what a success those have been and how they are copied by many countries, and I believe that other member states in the Community will be looking with great interest at what we are now proposing for British Rail.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. The Front-Bench spokesmen have taken almost 25 minutes in their exchange, and Back Benchers have so far had no opportunity to intervene. I ask them to give me support and ask one or two brief questions, and I ask the Secretary of State to reply briefly. This is a Back-Bench occasion, and I want as many Back Benchers as possible to intervene.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's statement today, representing as I do a constituency which has the worst commuter line in western Europe—[HON. MEMBERS: "No"]—the Uckfield line—as his proposals could attract new financial capital for investment which has been much neglected by British Rail. Can my right hon. Friend give us an assurance that, when bidding for such a franchise, the line will not be fleeced by British Rail?

Mr. MacGregor: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. The rail regulator is designed to ensure fair access to the track and fair competition between those who operate on it. I hope that we will attract more private finance, but that will partly depend on the terms and


conditions of franchises. I intend to be extremely flexible in that regard. My hon. Friend will acknowledge that not only private sector finance but different management and skills, added to that which is already in British Rail, will provide a strongly customer-oriented service.

Mr. Nick Harvey: Will the Secretary of State guarantee that the money raised from franchising will go back into the railways? Will he think again about the long-term objective of allowing the track to pass into the private sector, and instead regard it as an asset that the new freight and passenger operators can use in competition with their road rivals?

Mr. MacGregor: It is not an objective of privatisation that it will yield large proceeds for the Treasury—nor is that expected. That is not its purpose. I indicated that substantial publicly financed capital investment of about £1 billion is currently being undertaken by British Rail. British Rail's external financing limit this year is some £2,000 million. I am not sure that British Rail would get a particularly good deal from the kind of approach that the hon. Gentleman suggests. As to the track authority's longer-term situation, I expect that it will be some considerable time before matters develop to the point at which they should be considered. It is, however, right to include all the possibilities in the legislation.

Mr. Paul Channon: I also warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend on a step which I am sure will have all the advantages that he set out in his statement, and which will he widely welcomed. Will there still be control over fare increases on Network SouthEast, and will he undertake that there will be no extra delays in the provision of rolling stock on lines even worse than that mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith)—such as that linking London, Tilbury and Southend?

Mr. MacGregor: One franchise condition will be controls over the maximum level of fares, because clearly there will be continuing public subsidy of any particular franchise in Network SouthEast. It is not possible to answer my right hon. Friend's second question in relation to an individual line, because much will depend on the private sector operators who come forward and the offers that they make in respect of particular franchises. However, it is certainly the intention to get a lot more private sector finance into the system.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will the Secretary of State explain to my constituents—who saw what happened with British Rail Engineering Ltd.—the advantages to them of selling off the assets of a system that is already under-capitalised? They know that for them it will mean loss of income, jobs, and pension benefits, and a much worse system for the customer.

Mr. MacGregor: I have already made a brief mention of pension benefits, which are also spelled out in the White Paper. There will be no loss of pension benefits, as the hon. Lady suggests. In the sale or long leasing of stations, there is considerable potential for better commercial exploitation, which is another good reason for the proposals that we have made. I do not share the hon. Lady's view that a single, monolithic nationalised industry can provide better services than one that embodies all the impetus and

management skills of the private sector, competition, and choice. I could quote so many privatisations in which there has been a reduction in real terms in charges—

Mrs. Dunwoody: And in jobs.

Mr. MacGregor: There has of course been some slimming down, because some of the former nationalised industries were extremely inefficient. That is not a good way of making use of the nation's scarce economic resources. Those privatisations also resulted in better services to the customer.

Mr. Tim Rathbone: Can my right hon. Friend give a reassurance about the protection of small stations—particularly those along major lines—and that one will continue to be able to purchase tickets for the network from any one station?

Mr. MacGregor: If there are to be any station closure proposals, the procedures will be exactly those followed until now. We hope to improve their administration, but the principle will remain entirely the same. In the past 10 years or so, there have been many fewer station closures than there have been reopenings or the provision of new stations. The White Paper contains a paragraph on through ticketing. We acknowledge its benefits, and we will ensure that it is maintained.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: May I ask a question about paragraph 85 of the White Paper? By what means will the Government
encourage employees to take a direct stake in the future of the franchised or privatised businesses in which they will work"?
Will the issue be discussed with the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers at an early stage?

Mr. MacGregor: I very much hope that it will be possible to make arrangements to ensure that employees have a direct stake. That has happened in other privatised industries when there have been bids for franchises and private-sector companies have been involved, or there have been buy-outs. We shall develop such arrangements over the months ahead. I wrote to the general secretary of the union today offering talks, which I hope will take place in September.

Sir David Mitchell: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his progress in fulfilling our election manifesto commitment. How does he propose to ensure the continuation of a national timetable throughout the system?

Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That will be a matter fundamentally for Railtrack, but discussions will take place about the timetable with the franchise operators and, of course, the regulator. When difficulties or disputes arise over the timetable, or over access to train paths generally, it will be for the regulator to resolve them.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Bearing in mind the example of Tiger Rail—a private company operating on British Rail which has gone bankrupt—how will the Government ensure that, when the franchisees go into liquidation and finish up bust, services for both passengers and goods will continue? Is not the position summed up by the action of the Industrial Bank of Scotland, which


refused to provide leasing money for the Leeds-Bradford electrification scheme, saying that it was too dangerous with privatisation around the corner?

Mr. MacGregor: I think that the hon. Gentleman has interpreted that last development very strangely and inaccurately.

Mr. Cryer: I know about it.

Mr. MacGregor: I know quite a lot about it, too.
Let me deal with freight and passengers separately. As the hon. Gentleman will know, a number of freight services have been withdrawn in recent years, and I am keen for them to be built up again. I am anxious for more private sector operators to come onto the track as freight operators, either in respect of groups of service or in respect of particular services for their own companies. It will be for them to develop those services.
As for passenger services, where there is a franchising operation, the franchising authority will be responsible first for establishing the financial status of any bidders, and then for monitoring it throughout. If—this is entirely hypothetical, but I am responding to the hon. Gentleman's point—a franchisee runs into problems for any reason, he will be able to return to the franchising authority to discuss the terms and conditions of the contract. In the unlikely event of a failure on the part of the franchisee, it will be for the franchising authority to find alternative operators for the franchise.

Mr. Neville Trotter: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his aim of improving the railways so that they are used more. He will know of my involvement with the British Transport Police Federation. He rightly referred to the need to ensure safety standards; does he envisage a continuing role for that nationwide force, which specialises in dealing with the problems of policing people in the operating environment of a railway, especially at times when terrorist threats are being made?

Mr. MacGregor: I am well aware of my hon. Friend's interest in the matter, and I am grateful to him for raising it: he has enabled me to pay tribute to the work of the British Transport police. In the White Paper, we have made it clear that the Government have no plans to end the arrangement whereby the British Transport police are responsible for security and the enforcement of law and order on the railways. We have also said that we shall consult interested parties about appropriate future arrangements. I think that the talks are scheduled for September.

Mr. David Marshall: Exactly which parts of British Rail does the Secretary of State not intend to privatise? Does he agree that it is a disgrace that ScotRail is not mentioned once in the White Paper? What will happen to it, and, especially, to the highland and rural areas in Scotland? Will the Government make available additional resources for the running of those essential services, or will the railway system end at Edinburgh and Glasgow?

Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman will find that an awful lot of areas of the country that have rail services are not identified. That is because there is no need to do so on this occasion. However, there is a clear reference to

continuing subsidies for socially necessary lines. The current level of subsidy to regional railways is clearly spelt out. It is about £645 million—a very high figure. The hon. Gentleman's point is covered by the proposals we have put forward in the White Paper.

Mr. Tim Renton (Mid-Sussex): I understand that my right hon. Friend is to leave to the British Railways Board the individual decisions about allocation of capital, but unless the British Railways Board does commit more capital to the modernisation of the commuter lines that run through Sussex, it will be very difficult indeed to attract franchisees to this very good area, simply because the underlying conditions—the infrastructure—will not be
good enough for franchisees to commit themselves to running an efficient and punctual service.

Mr. MacGregor: I know that my hon. Friend will agree with me that there have to be limits to the level of public expenditure in any year. I am sure that he also wishes us to have the right order of priorities. In 1991–92, the grant to Network SouthEast amounted to £345 million, so a very substantial subsidy is going into that network. A large part of it has in the end to be directed to investment. Considerable investment is being made in rolling stock at present.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Is the Secretary of State able to clarify whether franchising can take place on a piecemeal basis for InterCity? Can he give an assurance that the socially necessary passenger services to which he referred will be safeguarded by way of finance if franchising takes place piecemeal in certain areas? Can the Secretary of State guarantee that the InterCity services in Wales between north Wales and London, south Wales and London, and north Wales and Cardiff can be guaranteed under this set-up?

Mr. MacGregor: I cannot give guarantees for all time, but I have said that British Rail has been looking at individual services and changing the arrangements between InterCity and the feeder lines. I would not wish to give a guarantee for all time, but we have said very clearly that we expect the national network broadly to be maintained. It is not our intention to franchise InterCity services as a whole. We intend to seek franchises for individual parts of it, the exact arrangements for which will depend on the responses we get from potential bidders.

Mr. Matthew Banks: While I welcome this gradual approach to introducing private sector competition, will my right hon. Friend make it clear that, with the creation of the safety executive, private sector operators, as well as British Rail, will be subject to the most stringent safety criteria in order to protect the interests of the travelling public?

Mr. MacGregor: Yes, indeed. I have already said that the Health and Safety Commission has approved proposals that we have made today from the safety point of view. I have asked the commission to make detailed recommendations for the arrangements that we shall be making in due course. It is absolutely crucial, in the interests of passengers and in the interests, if one is a franchisee, of ensuring that one attracts passengers, that, just as with individual airlines, the highest standards of safety are provided—not only for the reasons that we all understand but also from a commercial point of view. It


will certainly he crucial that Railtrack operates to the highest safety standards. All those who are providing the track and operating on the railway will have to conform to the stringent standards that will he put forward as a result of the advice that we receive.

Mr. Keith Hill: Can the Secretary of State name a single London commuter service that is likely to be affected by his franchising proposals over the next four years? Can he identify any direct benefits at all as a result of his plans for the London railway network, the busiest in the world? Is not this White Paper a monumental irrelevance for the hard-pressed London commuter?

Mr. MacGregor: No, it certainly is not. Every London commuter believes that the service can be improved, so the White Paper is certainly not a monumental irrelevance. I do not want to specify particular lines today, because it will not be possible to start the arrangements for making franchise contracts until the franchising authority is set up, and the franchising authority cannot be set up until we have received parliamentary approval to do so. There is a good deal of time for potential bidders to develop an interest in individual franchises. From approaches that have already been made, we know that a considerable number of companies are interested in taking up the possibilities.

Mr. Alan Haselhurst: In view of the relatively poor level of public satisfaction with the railways in the past 40 years, does my right hon. Friend agree that, provided of course that there is proper regulation of safety and timetabling, a better future for the railways lies in the injection of additional and alternative management, new ideas and, hopefully, new finance?

Mr. MacGregor: Yes, I very much agree with my hon. Friend, and I am grateful to him. One of the parallels in transport is British Airways. Its prospects have been transformed in financing, in the way it has expanded its services and in its competitiveness since it was privatised.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Paragraph 36 of the White Paper refers to the east coast main line. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm the definition of the east coast main line as being Aberdeen-London and London-Aberdeen? Does the White Paper bring the electrification of the Edinburgh-Aberdeen line nearer or push it further away?

Mr. MacGregor: It does not make a difference, because the arguments for the electrification of particular lines and the priorities will depend on the financial and cost-benefit analyses, which would be undertaken anyway. I hope that some franchisees of a particular line may wish to contribute to the track infrastructure investment but, at this stage, it would not be possible to say where, and the franchisees must make their own financial appraisal.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the reference in paragraph 36 to the east coast main line is an example of the way in which we believe the franchising of InterCity services will take place. We are not giving specific definitions today, for the simple reason that it is important to discover what the potential franchisees want to bid for, and there will have to be a process of negotiation and discussion between them.

Mr. Robert Adley: My right hon. Friend rightly enjoys good will throughout the House, and we

hope that his intentions are justified and will produce a better railway service. Will he bear it in mind the fact that 16,000 trains are run daily by British Rail, that for most of the passengers they are an essential part of daily life and that a few more Sock Shops on platforms and a few gaudy carriages will be no substitute for an essential service? Is there any set timetable in his proposals under which British Rail is being forced to dispose of its assets? Finally, will he also bear in mind that perhaps the last and most significant statement made in his place by a Conservative Minister was by Mr. Marples, and it spawned Dr. Beeching?

Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the kind words in his opening comments. Let me reassure him that we are talking of operations which range a good deal more widely than Sock Shops on platforms and gaudy carriages. I am sure that he will agree that there is absolutely nothing wrong with the private sector operations or British Rail itself seeking to market their services better and to find more attractions for their customers.
The timetable is flexible. I have made it clear that I want to pursue a flexible, workable and realistic approach, but I can say that, once the Bill has Royal Assent, we intend to proceed as quickly as possible with the freight and parcels businesses. I expect and hope that such arrangements will be made next year. As for franchises, we need first to set up the franchising authority and then to get the response from the marketplace and, I believe, management-employee bids from British Rail. Effectively, that will mean that we shall be thinking in terms of franchises from about April 1994 onwards.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does the Minister recall that he said a little earlier that pensions and concessionary fares would be safeguarded? Does he further recall that, when we considered the British Coal and British Rail (Transfer Proposals) Bill, he said that he would not write such safeguards into legislation? Unless he includes provisions governing pensions and concessionary fares in legislation, there will be no guarantee that, if any of the franchises are sold on later to another bidder, those entitlements will be safeguarded. Will he give a guarantee that pension and other entitlements will be written into the legislation, and that there will be no regional pay?

Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman must await the publication of the Bill. That issue will be discussed when we consider the Bill, but the position is as follows: the pension rights of existing contributors and past employees will be properly safeguarded on the privatisation of British Rail. After privatisation, employees will be entitled to preserve pension rights already accrued in the BR schemes. Alternatively, they will have the opportunity to transfer their accrued pension into a broadly comparable scheme in their new employment.

Mr. Barry Field: Will my right hon. Friend spell out how the proposals will help to resolve the long-running saga of the privatisation of British Rail's Isle of Wight line from the end of Ryde pier to Shanklin, as every proposal that we have advanced in the past has run into the old buffers of the British Rail management?

Mr. MacGregor: I shall have to consider that proposal in detail, but I would think that, under the Government's proposals, the line may well be capable of being franchised


and ultimately sold. I repeat that I shall need to look at the details, and stress that, in the end, it will be for the franchising authority to draw up the arrangements for individual franchises.

Mr. Roy Beggs: The Secretary of State will be aware of the extremely poor rail provision on the west coast of Scotland, and especially to the Stranraer port. What assurance can he give us with regard to the future of links between Stranraer and Glasgow, bearing in mind the fact that, last year, 1·8 million people moved between the Stranraer and Lame ports?

Mr. MacGregor: As I have said, we intend that the national network will be broadly maintained. Whether that line will be a candidate for franchising will depend on whether potential bids come forward from franchisees and on whether proper franchising arrangements can be drawn up.

Mr. Bill Walker: My right hon. Friend will be aware of my interest in these matters. Can he confirm that the integration of bus and rail services in remote areas of the United Kingdom, including parts of Scotland, will be a factor that is taken into consideration?

Mr. MacGregor: Yes, that may well be part of the arrangements for the franchises. I am well aware of the interest that my hon. Friend takes in these matters, and I know that he will agree that there are considerable possibilities for open access for new operators to the British Rail network, in respect of both freight and passengers.

Mr. John Home Robertson: Can the Secretary of State give any guarantees on the continuity of standards and security of employment for railway staff under the new fragmented franchise set-up? Can he say something about the future of passenger transport executives in local authorities in operating local rail services under the proposals?

Mr. MacGregor: PTEs will remain, and there will be the opportunity to franchise the services to which their subsidies at present apply. I should not wish to say that that will be within precisely the same boundaries as those within which passenger transport authorities currently provide grant. In some cases, there may be groups of passenger transport authorities, for the simple reason that a franchise arrangement may look rather different from the present arrangements. We would expect PTAs to make their subsidy contributions if they wish to do so in the same way as the Government will be making theirs, and we have already had discussions with them.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Will my right hon. Friend accept the congratulations of many commuters in my constituency who use the Liverpool Street and Fenchurch Street lines every day, who view with great anticipation the possibility of the trains running as frequently and being as cheap and as clean as many buses in our area? Is my right hon. Friend aware that seven of those bus companies have already expressed interest in taking over the Fenchurch Street line because they think that they can make a big success of it? Will he assure my constituency commuters that he will seriously consider

selling off the line lock, stock and barrel, possibly to the many commuters who have expressed an interest in buying shares in it?

Mr. MacGregor: I am very interested to hear what my hon. Friend has to say about the possible prospects for franchise bids. We certainly look forward to making more of the details about franchising arrangements available over the months ahead as we complete our work on them. I am sure that the people to whom my hon. Friend referred will want to consider those arrangements, and they will then have to discuss them with the franchising authority when we have the appropriate parliamentary consent to go ahead.
With regard to sale, I must state that our first objective is to get the franchises set up. I have already made it clear—and the Bill will make it clear—that outright sale could be a prospect in due course.

Mr. Hugh Bayley: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that there is already intense pride in the railways in my constituency of York and in many other constituencies? We do not need to break the railways up into regional fragments to install that pride. Given that the bus-building industry virtually collapsed after bus deregulation, what guarantees can the Secretary of State give to the 1,700 men who build railway trains in my constituency that their jobs are secure? What job guarantees can he give to the 3,000 people working at British Rail's eastern region headquarters in York?
Specifically, as 25 men who worked at the BREL works in York in the 1950s and 1960s have died from asbestos-related diseases, and sadly, it is likely that more will die, and given that BR has continued to maintain responsibility for compensating the families of the men who died, even though——

Madam Speaker: Order. We must have questions. The hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber earlier when I said that I wanted direct questions to the Secretary of State so that I might call a number of Back Benchers.

Mr. Bayley: Who will pay compensation in future in such cases? Will it be the track authority or the residual BR operating authority?

Mr. MacGregor: I would obviously want to look into the latter point. I imagine that, for some time to come, it will be the BR board. However, that is a very precise detailed point that I would like to look into. Perhaps I can write to the hon. Gentleman about it.
With regard to the hon. Gentleman's request for guarantees for jobs, it simply is not possible for me to guarantee for many years ahead the jobs of people in a manufacturing industry: the hon. Gentleman will be aware of that. The best guarantee is that we continue to expand the railways; that we have a significant level of capital investment, such as we have now; and that, through that operation and through successful completion of the capital investment programme, we attract more customers.

Mr. Peter Fry: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on establishing a balance between reassuring the public on safety grounds by creating the track authority and on introducing competition by what one can call gradual privatisation. The remarks about possible management and employee buy-outs were encouraging. Will my right hon. Friend go a little further


and give them a little more encouragement by saying that they will receive treatment similar to that which is likely to be offered to employees in municipalised bus companies, which are also contemplating privatisation?

Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I share his desire that we should encourage management-employee buy-outs. The precise arrangements by which we should do that have still to be completed, but I have noted my hon. Friend's interest. The White Paper fills out a considerable number of the details and all the broad approaches that we will be taking to privatisation and to the Bill itself. However, there is still quite a lot of work to be done on many details between now and Royal Assent.

Mr. Peter Snape: Having rightly paid tribute to the contribution of railway workers in the United Kingdom, does the Secretary of State accept that the proposals in the White Paper directly contradict the recent reorganisation of BR, conducted at a cost to public funds of at least £150 million? Does he accept that that damages the morale of those who work in the railway industry? Will the new private owners of railway stations, big or small, be allowed to propose the closure of those stations and the disposal of the assets once they accrue to them?
When will the Government acknowledge the inherent unfairness of the investment criteria that are applied to our railway system compared with our road network? Will the newly privatised lines or services be expected to deliver an 8 per cent. return on investment, unlike the proposed toll roads that he has proposed for the west midlands?

Mr. MacGregor: On the first question, of course I recognise the benefits that have come from the reorganisation British Rail is not alone in facing the fact

that further changes take place in organisations after 10 years of reorganisation. I strongly believe that there are additional benefits to come from these proposals. It will, of course, mean a further process of change for British Rail—I recognise that, and the chairman of British Rail recognises that. I have been very keen to ensure that the transition and the changes are managed properly. That change should take place is a feature of life at present. I have said that I believe that, in terms of morale, there are big opportunities for British Rail staff.
On the closure of stations, it will be a condition of any sale or long lease that the operation of the track and the station aspect will be secured.
On the hon. Gentleman's question about investment, as he will see from the White Paper when he gets a chance to read it, there are quite a number of references to investment in the track. Time forbids me to mention them all, but the view is sometimes around that there is unfair treatment between the level of capital investment in the road programme and on rail. In fact, the level of capital investment in the trunk road network and in motorways this year is about £2 billion. British Rail's extra financing limit is £2 billion.

Mr. Prescott: What about the different criteria?

Mr. MacGregor: The criteria have been referred to. No doubt we will be able to examine that matter in more detail later.
There is also the suggestion that, somehow or other, the playing field is not level, because those who operate on the road pay much less towards the infrastructure than those on rail. The contribution from fuel duty and other vehicle taxes is about two and a half times the annual programme of expenditure on the road construction programme.

Tilbury-Gravesend Ferry

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific, important and, above all, urgent matter.
For 900 years, a ferry has plied between Tilbury in Essex and Gravesend in Kent. For many years, it was run by British Rail before the ferry was privatised. At 9 am tomorrow, that ferry will cease. It will stop not because of under-use but because of the precipitate and unreasonable instruction of the Crown Estate Commissioners who control the ancient rights of ferry. That decision by the Crown Estate Commissioners, who are unelected, unaccountable and highly favoured establishment figures, jeopardises that ancient ferry and puts at a substantial disadvantage the good people of Essex and of Kent, and it raises a number of urgent issues.
The Minister has been aware for some days that the ferry is in jeopardy, but he has declined to take any action in safeguarding that public service. That is reprehensible and an example of double standards. The ferry is used daily by 300-odd passengers, and it is important to workers, industry and commerce and shops at Gravesend. They now face serious disadvantage, because the alternative will be a 45-minute trip by road instead of a five-minute trip by ferry.
The Minister should reconsider his action and use the remaining hours until 9 o'clock, perhaps with the support of the House, to intervene and use his good offices to persuade the feudal barons who run the Crown Estate to think again.
If British Airways were to decide, or was instructed, to halt the shuttle between London and Belfast or Edinburgh, there would be an almighty row in this House, and the Minister would intervene. But because we are dealing here with Essex, and because the passenger-carrying capacity is relatively small, he has shown a marked disinterest in this ferry and in the passengers it carries between Essex and Kent. I believe that that is not abdication by the Crown but abdication by the Minister in the face of the Crown, because the Crown is involved here. I hope that people will decide—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will understand that his time is now up. All the same, I have listened very carefully to what he has said. As he knows, I have to give my decision without giving a reason. I am afraid that I do not consider the matter that he has raised to be appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20. Unfortunately, therefore, I cannot submit the application to the House at this stage.

Points of Order

Mr. David Winnick: I wonder, Madam Speaker, whether you can give us any guidance on the protection of the rights of Back Benchers. The lists of Members' names relating to the Division that took place at 12.10 last night will not be published in Hansard until tomorrow, so I refer to sheets from upstairs.
The Division to which I refer relates to the amendment concerning membership of the Health Committee of the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). These are Back-Bench Committees, whose purpose is to look into and oversee departmental functions. In the same Division Lobby opposed to the nomination of the hon. Member for Macclesfield were a majority of the Cabinet, including the Secretary of State for Health, the head of the Department that the Health Committee will inquire into. She went into the Division Lobby with the other members of the Cabinet to oppose a certain hon. Member's retention of his membership of the Committee.
Does not this make a mockery of the way in which these Back-Bench Committees are set up? What protection can we have? There is supposed to be a free vote, and the Government deny that there is any whipping, yet it has come to my notice that the Government Chief Whip sent all Ministers, senior and junior, a letter asking them to be present.

Madam Speaker: I must refer the hon. Gentleman to column 830 of the Official Report of yesterday. He raised this point with me, and I gave a ruling, in which I said:
In answer to the hon. Gentleman's point of order, it is a matter entirely for the House and for every individual Member of the House, whether a Minister, Back Bencher or whatever, to make up his or her mind".—[Official Report, 13 July 1992; Vol. 211, c. 830.]

Mrs. Audrey Wise: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Order.

Mrs. Wise: On a new point of order.

Madam Speaker: May I just finish?
The way in which hon. Members vote in this House has nothing whatsoever to do with the Chair.

Mrs. Wise: Is not the point that we—and I am sure you, Madam Speaker—want Members to make up their own minds and to be free to do so? Is it not clear that some hon. Members were under a very serious constraint not to make up their own minds but to follow instructions? Is not that an abuse of the House?

Madam Speaker: Having been in this House for some time, I understand that from time to time disciplines are exercised by people called Whips. It is not for the Speaker to know whether a Whip is issued in respect of a certain matter. I would not be aware of that. It is not the business of the Speaker.

Dr. John Reid: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Does not a contradiction arise here? As has been made absolutely plain, the Select Committees were established to oversee the Government,


and they were to be constituted in such a way that the Whips' Office would have no power or control over them. In this regard, I quote——

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is simply continuing last night's debate and points of order with which I have already dealt. The House should accept the rulings that I have given. I cannot allow continuation of a debate that took place when I was in the Chair. I have heard it all before.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Is it a different point of order?

Mr. Dalyell: It is a variant on the point of order. Should there not be a code of behaviour for senior Ministers, not least the most senior, in voting on the composition of Select Committees? You say that it is not a matter for the Speaker, but it is at least a matter for the code of behaviour of each Member of Parliament. Some of us might think that we have been rebuked for far lesser things than voting on matters in which we have a definite interest.

Madam Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to pursue that point, I am sure that it may well be pursued with the Procedure Committee. He cannot pursue it with the Chair at this stage.

Water Charges

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to enable water companies to vary charges in order to assist retired, disabled and unemployed people, those on low incomes and those in full-time education, and to allow an abated charge for single-person households; to amend the Social Security Act 1986 to permit payments made to certain persons in respect of charges levied on them by water companies to be income-related benefits; and for connected purposes.
The Bill seeks to redress a considerable and widespread wrong. I seek to assist the most needy in our society to meet payments for a utility which is a basic daily need. It is, in the words of the Roman poet Pinder, "the noblest of elements". I seek to assist retired, disabled and unemployed people, those on low incomes and those in full-time education with their water bills by amending the Social Security Act 1986 to permit payments made to certain persons in respect of charges levied on them by water companies to be made through the income-related benefit system. I also seek to enable companies to vary charges to allow an abated charge for single-person households.
Between 1980–81 and 1992–93, water charges in Wales have risen by 80·3 per cent. in real terms. That is a truly astonishing figure. Unfortunately, the trend is ever upward and water charges are evidently becoming more and more of a burden on families each year. The privatisation of the industry was strongly opposed by my party and others in the House. We now see the effects of a policy which created a damaging monopoly in the provision of water and environmental services so utterly important to all of us. We still believe that water should be a public service.
The water companies have made fantastic profits-for example, Welsh Water made a profit of £128 million two years ago and £138 million last year—yet the upward curve in charges continues relentlessly. The sum of £138 million is a fantastic return on a turnover of £293 million. The last increases in charges were twice the level of inflation.
I am mindful of the large burdens which have fallen on the water companies in the form of long-awaited environmental work which should properly have been undertaken and paid for by central Government, but the astonishing fact is that each household now pays £130 per annum directly to Welsh Water's profits. I am sure that the figure compares with those for all water companies. I find that position utterly intolerable and unacceptable. It amounts to taxation without representation.
We all know only too well of many thousands of good, honest people who simply cannot pay their water bills. The principle of fair play appears to be markedly absent. The Government acknowledge the important principle of ability to pay. That principle appears in the law courts daily in connection with the unit fines system.
Indeed, so important is the principle that it has been thrust from above upon magistrates courts as if it were a commandment, and no cogent contrary argument existed. The principle is even enshrined to some extent in the odious community charge and will apply to the council tax when it eventually sees the light of day. I venture to suggest


that it is a vital principle and a most welcome one, particularly in the context of a utility and of all-important resources such as water and environmental services.
The report of the Office of Water Services last year referred to the fundamental aims of charging policies. It said that the policies must achieve
fairness and equity to ensure that customers in similar circumstances pay similar charges; and that, where they face different bills, the differences in charges properly reflect relevant differences in circumstances.
The current position is certainly not fair and equitable. During the past 12 months or so, I have had dozens of complaints from people in my constituency about the high level of water rates and, more importantly, their sheer inability to meet them. The point was forcibly driven home to me recently by a retired lady in Bala, who was in tears as she showed me her water rates bill.
That lady was in debt for the first time in her life. She was a shining example of a person who lived by the possibly outmoded work ethic. She lived in a modest flat, with one bedroom. To my alarm, I found that her water rates were £248 per annum—only a few pounds less than mine. We are a family of four with a larger house, and I have a teenage daughter, who spends a substantial portion of her waking hours in the shower. There can be no justification for that, since it is painfully obvious that the old lady is paying too much in comparison with my situation. I am not seeking a change that would result in remaining consumers having to pay more, but I strongly urge that that lady's plight is answered, and that of the tens of thousands like her.
During the election campaign, that was one of the most prominent issues that I heard on doorsteps. Time and time again, I found that people living alone were paying disproportionately for water and environmental services. I also found that those people most in need in our communities received no help, and were slipping into debt, frequently for the first time in their lives.
When I discussed this Bill with a Conservative Member, I was told that he accepted the position and that it needed redressing, but he went on to say, quite flippantly, "Why stop there? Why not television licence fees, and telephones next?" Some pensioners pay reduced television licence fees, and rightly so, but that misses the point completely. Water is a utility. We could not exist without it. The argument that if the Bill became law it would somehow set a precedent is too facile for words.
Welsh Water is a league leader for disconnections in the United Kingdom. That gives me no pleasure whatsoever. Possibly it does not give it pleasure either. The main issues involved are debts and disconnection. The crisis was highlighted last week when Ofwat met at Aberystwyth and urged upon Welsh Water the need for a reappraisal of the methods of payment, and a more sensitive approach to disconnection. I reiterate that there is a crisis in Wales, and I suggest that the situation is also serious elsewhere.
What is a person whose water has been disconnected to

do? As Aristotle put it "When water chokes you, what are you to drink to wash it down?" [HON. MEMBERS: "Wine."] Thanks for the suggestion.
I seek two changes. First, I want a 25 per cent. reduction for single-person households. That would be practicable and straightforward to operate, as the data will be freely available under the new council tax structure, which provides a similar 25 per cent. reduction for such householders.
Secondly, people on low incomes, including the retired, disabled, unemployed and those in full-time education, need direct help. Assistance could be given to those people by introducing a water charges benefit, which would operate as an income-related benefit. Again, the database is readily available and the solution is simple and straightforward. It would require an amendment of the Social Security Act 1986, but I venture to suggest that such an amendment would be easily achieved and simple to introduce and to operate.
Theoretically, income support takes into account the cost of water, but there is evidence that the shortfall of years up to 1991 was not made good. That is the contention of the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux and I am sure that it is right. Historically, we in Plaid Cymru have always taken an active interest in the provision of water. Some say that it is one of our pet subjects. Pet subject or no, there has never been such an urgent need for reform. That is reflected by the fact that my Bill is sponsored by hon. Members from four parties in the House.
To quote from the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux' June report:
water is a vital service, and immediate action must be taken to ensure that it remains available and affordable to vulnerable members of the community".
If we merely stand by and take no action, we are failing thousands of our constituents. I therefore commend my Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Elfyn Llwyd, Mr. Dafydd Wigley, Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones, Mr. Cynog Dafis, Mrs. Margaret Ewing, Mr. Andrew Welsh, Mr. Alex Salmond, Mr. Allan Rogers, Mr. Paul Flynn, Ms. Liz Lynne and Mr. Alex Carlile.

WATER CHARGES

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd accordingly presented a Bill to enable water companies to vary charges in order to assist retired, disabled and unemployed people, those on low incomes and those in full-time education, and to allow an abated charge for single-person households; to amend the Social Security Act 1986 to permit payments made to certain persons in respect of charges levied on them by water companies to be income-related benefits; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time, and ordered to be read a Second time upon 22 January 1993 and to be printed. [Bill 59.]

Orders of the Day — Sea Fish (Conservation) Bill

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New clause 3

RESTRICTIONS ON TIME SPENT AT SEA—APPEALS

'After section 4 of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967 there shall be inserted—

"Restrictions on time spent at sea—appeals.

4AA.—(1) For the purposes of performing the functions conferred by this section there shall be a tribunal to be called the Sea Fish Licence Tribunal.

(2) If—

(a) a licence under section 4 of this Act contains a condition restricting the time which a vessel may spend at sea, and
(b) no licence containing such a condition has previously been granted in respect of that vessel,
the person to whom the licence is granted may make an application to the tribunal requesting it to review the time which according to the condition the vessel may spend at sea.

(3) The Ministers shall by regulations make provision as to—

(a) the manner in which and the time within which applications under subsection (2) above are to be made, and
(b) the principles on which the time which vessels may spend at sea is to be arrived at;
and the quorum and procedure of the tribunal on dealing with an application shall be such as may be determined by or in accordance with regulations made by the Ministers.

(4) On an application under subsection (2) above the tribunal, consistently with the principles referred to in subsection (3)(b) above, may—

(a) dismiss the application, or
(b) determine that the licence should be varied either by increasing or by reducing the time which the vessel may spend at sea.

(5) If the tribunal makes a determination under subsection (4)(b) above, the Minister who granted the licence shall vary the licence so as to give effect to the determination, and shall make a corresponding variation of any other licence in force in respect of the same vessel.

(6) The tribunal shall consist of members appointed by the Ministers, and the number of members shall be such as the Ministers may determine.

(7) The Ministers shall make such provision as they think fit as to—

(a) the remuneration of the members of the tribunal, and the reimbursement of their expenses, and
(b) the staff and accommodation of the tribunal; and any expenses reasonably incurred by the tribunal shall be defrayed by the Ministers.

(8) Regulations under this section shall be made by statutory instrument, which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.".'.—[Mr. Curry.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Curry): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Janet Fookes): With this it will be convenient to consider the following: Government new clause 4—Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992.

New clause 2—Licence appeal tribunals—

'. The following Schedule shall be added after the Schedule to the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967—

SCHEDULE

LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNALS

1. The Ministers may by order made by statutory instrument appoint up to five licence appeal tribunals for each of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

2.—(1) Each tribunal shall consist of a chairman and two assessors, appointed by the appropriate Minister, and shall be supported by a secretary and such other staff as the Minister may appoint.

(2) A chairman shall be an advocate, barrister or solicitor of not less than ten years' standing.

(3) An assessor shall be a person who appears to the appropriate Minister to have practical experience of the catching sector of the fishing industry.

3.—(1) The Ministers may by regulations make provision for the procedure to be followed in appeals to a licence appeal tribunal.

(2) Regulations under this paragraph may include provision—

(a) as to the time within which any proceedings before the committee are to be instituted;
(b) for requiring persons to attend and give evidence and produce documents; and
(c) as to the manner in which any decision of the tribunal is to be implemented.

4. With the leave of a tribunal or of the appropriate Minister, an appeal shall lie from any decision of that tribunal—

(a) in England and Wales, to a Divisional Court;
(b) in Scotland, to the Outer House of the Court of Session; and
(c) in Northern Ireland, to a Judge of the High Court.".'.

Amendment No. 6 in clause 1, page 1, line 16, at end insert—
'(6C)(a) The skipper, owner or charterer of a vessel named in a licence may appeal to a licence appeal tribunal on the grounds that a condition imposed under subsection (6)(c), or provision made under subsection (6B) above, is unfair or unduly restrictive, provided that not more than one appeal may be made in respect of any one licence in any period of twelve months.
(b) Schedule (Licence Appeal Tribunals) shall have effect.'.

Government amendments Nos. 9 and 11 to 13.

Mr. Curry: In Committee, I undertook to table a Government amendment to introduce a system of statutory tribunals to hear appeals against allocations of days at sea. The new clause establishes a tribunal, which is to be known as the Sea Fish Licence Tribunal. Its purpose will be to consider appeals from fishermen against their initial days at sea allocations. It will not cover licence suspension or revocation.
Ministers will be empowered to make regulations to specify the time during which applications can be made, the principles on which time at sea allocations will be adjudicated and the procedural arrangements for the tribunal—for example, what will constitute a quorum.
The tribunal will be empowered to dismiss appeals that are not valid and to increase or reduce allocations. The


tribunal's decisions will be binding on Ministers, who will be required to amend licences in accordance with its findings.
Ministers will appoint the members of the tribunal and make provision for their remuneration and for the reimbursement of expenses. They will also provide staff and accommodation for the tribunal and reimburse expenses.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: It is typical of the haste with which the Bill has been pushed forward that we should be considering a complicated new clause such as this. If the Minister is making provision for the pay of tribunal members, why is he not making provision for compensation for the fishermen who will have to give up fishing to appear before the tribunals, and will waste considerable time at them?

Mr. Curry: If the hon. Gentleman had spent less time talking and more time listening in Committee, he would know the answer to that question. We intend to take the tribunals to the fishermen. We have made it clear that they will meet in the major fishing ports, and we intend to establish a number of fishery tribunals. There might well be a dozen or even 15 tribunals, and their job will be to listen to the cases put to them by the fishermen. They will be modelled on the dairy quota tribunals, which worked extremely well in the dairy sector. We envisage a three-man tribunal—as happened with the dairy quota tribunals—which should be presided over by someone from the legal profession. There should also be a lay member and someone with expert knowledge of fisheries.
The tribunals will be placed under the supervision of the Council of Tribunals, and that is provided for in new clause 4, which is consequent on the measure establishing independent statutory tribunals. I have tabled a new clause which fully honours the commitment that I gave in Committee, and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Paul Channon: I had intended just to intervene rather than to make a speech now, but I shall turn that intervention into one.
I welcome the new clause. Will my hon. Friend explain what criteria and rules would lead the tribunal to give an extra allocation to someone who applied to it? I know that my hon. Friend will make the regulations, but can he tell me how they will govern how the tribunal works?
A fisherman in my area might fish for white weed, which was not recorded in the number of days that he spent at sea in 1991. Would the tribunal be asked to take such activity into account before deciding that fisherman's allocation for 1993 and other years?
My hon. Friend will be aware that, in my part of the Thames estuary, when the stocks of sole are low, many fishermen spend a lot of time fishing for white weed, which is a type of white coral. I am not asking my hon. Friend to say whether my fishermen would win in a tribunal, but whether such activity is the type of thing to which the tribunal would be bound to pay attention before deciding on what the allocation should be to individual fishermen.

Mr. Curry: The answer to my right hon. Friend's question is yes. If it was clear that those boats were not seeking fish, but seeking a different product, it would be perfectly possible for the tribunal to adjudicate on that.
Similarly, in other areas, boats may ferry equipment to oil rigs in the North sea or they may take people around a bay. It would be perfectly possible for the tribunal to adjudicate when there is a sharp distinction between fishing and unrelated activities carried out by those boats. However, we intend that that is precisely the type of non-fishing activity that we would take into account when setting the original number of days at sea. We therefore hope that fishermen would not feel obliged to go to a tribunal, because we hope to accommodate such activities at a much earlier stage in the process.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: May I move new clause 2 now?

Madam Deputy Speaker: It is perfectly permissible for the hon. Gentleman to speak to that new clause, but we deal with one new clause at a time.

Dr. Godman: In that case, I shall speak to new clause 2 and offer a couple of comments on new clause 3.
I was pleased to hear the Minister talk about local tribunals, because, as I specify in new clause 2, that is an important factor.
Given the type of decisions that will be taken on whether fishermen should continue fishing or be denied the right to go to sea, where they have traditionally sailed, it is important that the appeals tribunals should form an integral part of the legal systems of our countries. That is why I emphasise in new clause 2(1):
The Ministers may by order made by statutory instrument appoint up to five licence appeal tribunals".
The Minister proposed between 10 and 15, which goes well
beyond my suggestion.

Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman's new clause and mine are similar. We envisage setting up sufficient tribunals to deal with the volume of appeals as expeditiously as possible. There is a legal unbrella for those tribunals—the Council of Tribunals. The most sensible thing to do is to ensure that the licence appeal tribunals fall within the jurisdiction of that supervisory body in the same way as tribunals in other sectors. We have therefore deliberately brought the licence appeal tribunals under that framework, and a separate, consequential new clause has no other purpose but to put those tribunals under the legal umbrella of the Council on Tribunals.

Dr. Godman: I am grateful to the Minister for that intervention and for what appeared to be a back-handed compliment to new clause 2.
New clause 4 refers to the Tribunals and Inquiries Bill, which is now going through the House. It makes good sense for the licence tribunal and the appeal tribunals to be covered by that Bill. I am pleased to note what the Minister said about the legal status of the appeal tribunals.
Paragraph (2)(2) of the schedule in new clause 2 states:
A chairman shall he an advocate, barrister or solicitor of not less than ten years' standing".
I was anxious to ensure that those tribunals follow the
traditional practice adhered to by social security appeal tribunals, medical appeal tribunals and others.
Paragraph (2)(3) states:
An assessor shall be a person who appears to the appropriate Minister"—
that could be the Minister with responsibility for fisheries in Scotland or Northern Ireland—
to have practical experience of the catching sector of the fishing industry.


I am pleased that the Minister has acknowledged the importance of such experience, because the decisions reached by those tribunals will have a profound effect upon the lives not just of the fishermen, but of their families and, in some cases, their communities.
Paragraph (4) states:
With the leave of a tribunal or of the appropriate Minister, an appeal shall lie from any decision of that tribunal … in Scotland, to the Outer House of the Court of Session".
I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland would agree with that. An appeal on a decision taken by a tribunal sitting in Campbelltown or Fraserburgh could finish up in the Outer House of the Court of Session. Perhaps I could be given a judgment on that point later. Similarly, an appeal in Northern Ireland could go before a High Court judge.
It is absolutely essential for our fishermen to know that, notwithstanding the fact that they will receive a fair hearing before a tribunal—composed of the people that the Minister and I have suggested—they have the ability to make a challenge.

Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will outline the Scottish circumstances, but in England and Wales a fisherman would have recourse to judicial review. If a fisherman is not satisfied with the outcome of a tribunal, he has further legal recourse. If the tribunal was not a statutory one, the fisherman would appeal to me or other Ministers with responsibility for fisheries. However, because it is a statutory tribunal, legal recourse will be sought through a judicial review of the verdict.

Dr. Godman: I am extremely grateful to the Minister for another helpful intervention.
It is essential that the tribunal should be located as near as possible to the fishing ports. It appears that a number will be set up in England, and obviously a similar number, or even more, should be set up in Scotland. In view of the size of the Scottish fishing fleet and the way in which it is scattered around the coastline and islands, it is essential to establish tribunals that are as local as possible to the fishing communities, which are often remote.

5 pm

Mr. A. J. Beith: I will not lose the opportunity to welcome—it will not happen often this afternoon—a change in the Bill by the Government. We appreciate the Minister moving the new clause in response to a new clause moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) in Committee. Indeed, the Minister said at the time that he found himself in an unusual position and that it was rare for him to be able to invite my hon. Friend to withdraw his proposal because he intended to table a similar provision at a later stage.
If the tribunals are so busy that there is a queue of fishermen wanting their cases to be heard in 12 or 15 ports, that will be a demonstration of how fiercely the Bill is biting into the livelihood of fishermen. While we need an appeals procedure to deal with grievances, we do not want the measure to operate so harshly that it removes the livelihood of fishermen.
My hon. Friends and I would rather the Bill was not brought into effect, or was at least subject to later amendment which ensured that it did not come into effect unless the circumstances changed significantly. Frankly, if

the situation develops in the way that I described, the one line of opportunity for fishermen will be to seek places on the tribunals for people with experience of the fishing industry. That will be about the only way to make an honest penny out of one's experience of the industry. There will not be much other chance of using that knowledge.
There is even a danger, from the way in which the new clause is drafted and the regulations are likely to be drawn, that the time spent by fishermen attending tribunals could affect their entitlement to days at sea in subsequent years.

Mr. Elliot Morley: It could have an effect on a fisherman's track record.

Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman is right: having to attend a tribunal could have an effect on one's track record.
The tribunals procedure, necessary and welcome though it is, represents only a tiny alleviation of some of the most unfair consequences of what, in any event, will be disastrous for many people in the fishing industry. We are glad that it is in the Bill, but we would rather it was not needed, or had to be used only rarely.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: This is a bad Bill, which is not made much better by having regional tribunals. I am glad that the Minister has accepted the principle of tribunals and that, even at this late stage, he has introduced the new clause.
I echo what has been said about the need for tribunals to be localised. In the context of Humberside, where does the Minister envisage the tribunal being established? We have the two major ports of Hull and Grimsby. The overwhelming majority of the fishing fleet is in Grimsby. May we have an undertaking that the tribunal will be there?
I fear that the Minister is opening a Pandora's box by establishing tribunals. If milk licensing is anything to go by, the tribunal system will be enormously complicated and time-consuming, so we must have an undertaking that the people who compose the tribunals know the fishing industry. We do not want a legalistic framework with a pedantic formula of rules which will dazzle and baffle the fishermen. We need people on the tribunals who are from the fishing industry and who know how it works and about its problems.
The Minister must also give an undertaking that there will be compensation. The tribunals will not be out on the fishing grounds, which means that fishermen cannot carry on fishing while attending tribunals. Days at sea will be lost appearing before tribunals. The system will not be akin to milk licensing tribunals. The cows are milked while the farmer appears before a tribunal and has his complaint heard. It is not the same with the fishing industry. Fishermen cannot appear before a tribunal and fish at the same time, so there should be compensation for the fishing time lost.

Mr. Morley: While we welcome the tribunal concept, it is sad that, in the context of the Bill, such tribunals are necessary. Once the measure becomes law, there will be a queue of fishermen wanting to attend tribunals to ascertain their track record and see how the Bill applies to them.
One of our main objections to the Bill is that it adds yet another tier of bureaucracy and more expense to fisheries management. That money could be used in more


constructive ways, such as for gear options and support of that type. I hope that the Minister will respond to the sensible points that my hon. Friends have made, which were made by us in Committee and featured in Opposition amendments dealing with the concept of tribunals.

Dr. Godman: I had intended to refer to the need for tribunals to hear cases quickly. A common complaint that we receive at our surgeries is about constituents waiting for cases to be heard by, for example, medical and social security tribunals. I hope that fishermen will not have to wait an inordinate time before having their cases heard.

Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend makes an important point, especially as people's livelihoods are being threatened because of a reduced number of days fishing at sea. There will be a tremendous initial rush of people wishing to appear before the tribunals. The Minister said that a sufficient number of tribunals will be available in the ports. We need to be assured just where the tribunals will sit and how the Minister will deal with the initial demand. Will there be enough tribunals or some sort of flexible arrangement to meet the undoubted peak? Unless adequate arrangements are made, fishermen will be waiting a long time for tribunal decisions on matters affecting their livelihood.

Mr. John D. Taylor: I welcome the Minister's positive response in recommending the establishment of tribunals. While they will not overcome the apprehensions of the fishing industry about the Bill, they represent a step forward.
I am reminded of the problems we had when milk quotas were allocated after 1985. There were then separate panels for different parts of the United Kingdom. For example, we had a Northern Ireland panel because quotas were allocated to Scotland, Northern Ireland and the other regions.
For the fishing industry, it seems that there will be one tribunal, or one set of tribunals, dealing with the whole of the United Kingdom. I am not against that in principle, but I trust that there will be consistency in the decisions made by the various tribunals. That will be achieved if only a small number of people are involved, allowing consistency to apply in decision making throughout the United Kingdom. We do not want disparity in such matters.
Where will the tribunals sit? Most fishing ports in Northern Ireland are remote from the main centres of population. Transport facilities are not good, and the public transport system is not favourable in terms of our fishing ports. So I hope that the tribunals will meet in the fishing ports. I hope that, in terms of Northern Ireland, the tribunal will not meet in Belfast. It should meet in the main fishing port of Northern Ireland, which is Portavogie. I do not want my fishermen to have to spend all day travelling on bad roads to and from Belfast. Will the Minister explain his thoughts on the location of the tribunals when they sit to examine applications?

Mr. John Home Robertson: The fishermen in my part of the world already have to travel considerable distances to find harbours large enough from which to work. I share the hope of other hon. Members

that the tribunals will inject at least some justice in to what will otherwise be a position of chaos and considerable injustice.
I am spurred to take part in the debate by the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), who referred to the membership of the milk quota tribunals. I recall that the chairman of the milk tribunal in Scotland was Mr. David Miles, who was given that job shortly after losing his seat as a Conservative Member of Parliament. I wonder whether Chris Patten or Chris Chope—at least his constituency was on the sea—will end up as chairmen of the tribunal. The mind boggles.
It is important that the tribunals should be manned by people who know what they are talking about.

Mr. Alex Salmond: Surely we can have no fears in that regard after the speech of Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, who seemed to give an absolute assurance that the Government would stop stuffing committees with Conservative placepeople. Has the hon. Gentleman no confidence in that assurance?

Mr. Home Robertson: Precious little.

Dr. Godman: My hon. Friend laughs at the intervention by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) but it is an important point. I am sure that my hon. Friends agree that there must be no political patronage, which is why I emphasised during our discussion of new clause 2 that the chairman should be an advocate or lawyer of 10 years' standing. That might provide work for Lord Fraser.

Mr. Home Robertson: My hon. Friend fills me with even more alarm. We could end up with the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn), who already has two jobs on the Scottish Select Committee and the Defence Select Committee.
The matter is serious. The tribunals must be seen to be credible and fair, and manned by people of standing who have credibility in the fishing industry and the wider community. The Government do not have a good track record in nominating people to run such establishments. I have already cited the example of the milk tribunal. The tribunals have an important job to do and had better do it well.

Mr. Curry: I wish to reassure the House on almost all of those points. I have responded in interventions to the points made by the hon. Member for Glasgow and Port Greenock (Dr. Godman). I do not know how many tribunals there will be because we shall institute the tribunals in function of the work load. Therefore, if the work load is heavy we shall have more. I shall not lay down a maximum number of tribunals. It is important that they get off the ground quickly and we intend to bring them into existence at the earliest possible moment, once we have secured the Bill. They will then be in a position to operate immediately and we shall invite them to look at the most severe cases first, so they would prioritise their cases.
They will be three-men tribunals, and the chairman of each tribunal and the overall president of the system would come from the legal profession. I am sure that they would be of sufficient standing to meet hon. Members' concerns.
We shall ensure that the criteria are consistent and the tribunals will be peripatetic. We do not intend to establish them in a particular port and tell them not to move from it. The right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) is


right to say that the tribunals would be United Kingdom-wide. They would go to where they were most useful and meet in the principal fishing ports. We aim to take the tribunals to the fishermen.
The House agrees that this is a sensible move. It fulfils an undertaking that I gave in Committee, and I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 4

TRIBUNALS AND INQUIRIES ACT 1992

'In Schedule 1 to the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992 (tribunals under the general supervision of the Council on Tribunals), in Part I, after entry No. 40 there shall be inserted—
"Sea fish (conservation)

40A. The Sea Fish Licence Tribunal established under section 4AA of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967.".'—[Mr. Curry.]—

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 5

SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS

'After section 4A of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967 there shall be inserted—
"Regulations supplementary to sections 4 and 4A.

4B.—(1) The Ministers may by regulations make provision as to—

(a) the manner in which a licence under section 4 or 4A of this Act is to be granted, or a variation, revocation or suspension effected, and
(b) the time when a licence, or a variation, suspension or revocation, shall have effect.

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above, regulations under this section may include provision—

(a) for documents to be delivered, or notices given, to the nominees of person to whom licences are granted;
(b) for documents or notices to be treated as delivered or given if they are posted or otherwise communicated in accordance with the regulations;
(c) for notices to be given by publication in newspapers;
(d) as to the transitional effects of variations.

(3) Regulations under this section may make different provision for different cases.

(4) Regulations under this section shall be made by statutory instrument, which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.".'—[Sir Hector Monro]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Sir Hector Monro): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The Chairman: With that it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 14, in clause 1 page 1, line 19, at end insert—
'(4A) After subsection (7A) there shall be inserted—
(7B) In any proceedings in Scotland commenced on or after the coming into force of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1992 for an offence under this section, any—

(a) entry in any logbook kept, under an enforceable Community obligation relating to fishing activities, by the master of a vessel;

(b) declaration made, under such an obligation—

(i) by the master of a vessel or by an agent, as to fish landed; or
(ii) by the master of a vessel, as to trans-shipment;
(c) information required to be provided under—

(i) any condition imposed under subsection (6) above, by the master, owner or charterer (if any) of a vessel, or by an agent;
(ii) subsection (7) above, by the master, owner, or charterer (if any) of a vessel,
shall be received in evidence without being produced or sworn to by any witness and shall be sufficient evidence of the matters stated therein.".'.

No. 15, in clause 2, page 1, line 29, at end insert—
'(2A) After subsection (8) there shall be inserted—
(8A) In any proceedings in Scotland commenced on or after the coming into force of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1992 for an offence under this section, any—
(a) declaration made, under an enforceable Community obligation relating to fishing activities, by the master of a vessel;
(b) information required to be provided under—

(i) any condition imposed under subsection (6) above;
(ii) subsection (7) above,
by the master, owner or charterer (if any) of a vessel, shall be received in evidence without being produced or sworn to by any witness and shall be sufficient evidence of the matters stated therein.".'.

Sir Hector Monro: New clause 5 is a measure to reinforce the workings of the licensing system, which is necessary as we are to rely on that system for administering days at sea limits.
The issue of a licence, the variation of that licence and, if necessary, suspension or revocation are functions undertaken to apply conservation measures. At present, fishermen sometimes deploy the argument that because they were at sea when a licence variation was delivered to their address, they cannot be bound by its terms. Towards the end of last year, when fishermen became aware that the closure of the haddock fishery was imminent, a large portion of the fleet went to sea and stayed out as long as possible, thus maximising their catches before they had to admit that they knew that the fishery was closed. Such behaviour is unfair on law-abiding fishermen who stop fishing as soon as they hear on the radio that the fishery is closed. It is unfair and cannot be allowed to continue.
The new clause will enable us to overcome the problem. The Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967 empowers Ministers to grant licences but does not specify how they should be granted. The new clause will enable Ministers to spell out in regulations how a licence or a notice of its variation, suspension or revocation will be granted, whom it should be delivered to and when it will take effect. We intend to specify that a licence will have been granted, and therefore take effect, once it is delivered.
We also intend to require licence holders to nominate a person with a United Kingdom address to whom the licence should be delivered and to specify that as far as the law is concerned, delivery to that nominee's address will be regarded as the same as delivery into the hands of the licence holder. That will overcome the problem of the licence holder being at sea at the time of delivery. It will also ensure that vessels that spend much of their time operating from foreign ports are on a par with those from United Kingdom ports. It will be up to the licence holder to make suitable arrangements for ensuring that the nominee passes the information contained in the licence on


to him if he is at sea. Obviously, one must be flexible because it may take a day or so for that to happen, particularly if a boat is in foreign waters.
Regulations will also be able to provide for notices of licence variation, revocation or suspension to be given by means of publication in newspapers where necessary.
Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 provide that, in any proceedings for an offence under sections 4 and 4(A) of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967, it will be unnecessary for a witness to speak to the documents listed or for those documents to be corroborated by other witnesses. They will accordingly be admissible as proof of what they say, unless and until the contrary is proved.
The House may find it helpful if I describe how fishermen record their activities, the additional information that will be required to monitor days at sea, and how that leads to the need for the two amendments. On each trip, a fisherman is required to keep a record of his activities in his EC logbook and, on returning to port, send a copy to my Department, keeping a copy for himself. The logbook records when the vessel left port, when it fished, what it caught, when and where it returned to port and various other details.

Dr. Godman: The Minister is now talking about the logbook and said "when the vessel was fishing". If the vessel cannot fish for a day or two because of bad weather, would that be taken into consideration in terms of days spent at sea? When a vessel is on the fishing grounds but the gear is fastened down because of severe weather, will allowances be made?

Sir Hector Monro: All those matters are part of a vessel's track record. As my hon. Friend the Minister of State said on the previous amendment, all those matters are taken into account when days at sea are accounted for. What the skipper puts in the logbook will be important information.

Dr. Godman: I am grateful to the Minister for showing his characteristic courtesy. Does he agree that, in winter, there could be a pronounced distinction between days spent at sea and days fishing?

Sir Hector Monro: I am well aware of that. As a fellow Scot, I know the hostile conditions that many of our fishermen face in the north, particularly in the far north.
Similarly, a landing declaration is required to confirm the quantities of various species caught once they have been measured accurately in the course of landing and selling the fish.

Mr. Salmond: The Minister will remember that, under the iniquitous eight-day continuous tie-up regulations in Scotland, when it was days in port that were being counted, provision had to be made for when a boat was caught in a storm and could not return to its home port. Will provision be made in this legislation to deal with the point made by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), when a boat cannot fish because of the prevailing weather conditions at sea? The Minister will appreciate that the issue of fishing safety arises if boats are forced to fish in all conditions, about which people from fishing communities feel strongly.

Sir Hector Monro: I accept that fishermen feel strongly about that, as they did about the tie-up rule. However, the hon. Gentleman knows that he is pushing me pretty far towards saying that, if the weather is bad, it does not count as a day at sea. One must be cautious about that, because it is particularly difficult to say when and at what time the weather turns so perverse that the nets have to be brought in and fishing cease. All the information on the log must be taken into account when drawing up the track record.
To monitor days at sea, we shall need additional information so that records are available for time spent at sea on trips which did not involve fishing and fishing trips where the EC does not require a logbook to be completed—for example, trips of less than 24 hours in duration where the vessel is less than 17 m in overall length. Both my Department and the fishermen will keep copies of the log book, landing declarations and returns on long fishing trips. We shall thus be able to monitor how many days at sea a vessel has done in a year.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State has described how procedures followed by Departments plus an independent appeals tribunal will ensure that the allocation of days is fair. So that the whole system is fair, we must ensure that we can prevent people from going to sea for more days than those to which they are entitled. The amendments are required to ensure that offences under the Bill can be effectively prosecuted in Scotland. They will ensure that crucial documents such as logbooks and landing declarations are admissible in Scottish ports as proof of what they say without the need for any witnesses to speak for them.
It will be open to fishermen to bring evidence before the court if they dispute the provenance or content of a log sheet, and in such instances the Crown will have to lead its own evidence of the authenticity of the documents. It is in everybody's interests that, if a case involves 50 or more log sheets which are not disputed by the fisherman, those can be introduced into evidence as simply as possible.
Fishing is unusual in that it is an activity which is necessarily tightly controlled by the law in order to conserve fish stocks, yet it takes place in remote places where, despite all the efforts of our protection services, there is usually little evidence beyond the documents that the fisherman himself provides. It is therefore entirely reasonable that, unless there is evidence to the contrary, the fisherman's own records of his activities should be accepted.
Amendment No. 14 introduces the arrangements that I have described for the generality of documents kept by fishermen, and amendment No. 15 does the same thing for documents relating to the transhipment of fish from one vessel to another. The amendments address issues that arise in Scottish courts, and I commend them and new clause 5 to the House.

Mr. Salmond: I cannot help feeling that the Minister's introduction of the new clause and the amendments reinforces the view that many of us have that we are seeing the addition of a new layer of bureaucracy on to an already complex position within the industry.
The Minister may recall that on Second Reading I detailed at some length the hugely variant and different standings for which boats within the white fish fleet could be fishing, depending on where they were fishing and what their historical track record had been, whether they were on tied-up days or what their mesh size was. There are


already five different standings for the white fish fleet. In pursuance of the Bill, the Minister seems to be adding another maze of regulations.
Having heard the Minister, I can well understand why the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, could not give an estimate of the duration or even the number of sittings of the tribunal which the Government are proposing to establish. The Government have not taken on board the full complexity of the regulations that they are trying to enforce.
Members of Parliament representing fishing communities would like to know whether safety at sea and bad weather conditions will be taken into account and be a significant factor in adjudicating whether a boat has been fishing at sea or has merely been at sea sheltering from bad weather. The Minister may consider it almost impossible to make such a distinction, but what he has already outlined seems to be impossible in bureaucratic terms.

Dr. Godman: I want to follow the remarks of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) on amendment No. 14 and logbook entries. The Minister opened up a chink of light in terms of the need to be concerned with our fishermen's safety with his responses to my interventions and to one made by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan.
The Minister will recall that I gave an example from my brother's experience of a vessel having to sail into wind during severe weather conditions off the west coast of Greenland, far outside the province of the Bill. That vessel was on the fishing grounds but unable to fish for almost eight days. I do not envisage such a problem arising in Shetland waters, the Pentland firth, off the west coast of Scotland, in the channel or off the east coast of England, but it is essential that the appeal tribunals recognise, as the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan said, the need to pay due cognisance to the safety requirements of fishermen and fishing vessels.
We should be aiming by way of the logbook entries and the appeal tribunals for a position where the skipper of a vessel on the fishing grounds can say, "Hey, lads, the weather is worsening. We are now coming up to a force 8 and we should not be shooting the gear, so we shall bring it in or tie it up and go in for a bit of dodging. We won't suffer because we have had to dodge for one or two days." During a severe winter, those one or two days could add up to a number of days lost as a result of the severity of the fishing conditions.
I shall be looking to the appeal tribunal to take serious notice of weather conditions if skippers make appeals on that basis. They may have been unable to fish for as many as 20 days in a period of two or three months, despite the fact that they were on the fishing ground, because of the severity of the weather. Had they shot the gear they might have endangered the lives of the crew. That must be taken into account by the regulations and, perhaps more importantly, by the appeal tribunals.

Mr. Rupert Allason: I welcome the establishment of the appeal tribunals, but will a skipper be required to provide evidence that, for example, his boat suffered engine trouble when applying to the Department for a longer licence, or would he apply direct to the appeal tribunal for a licence to be granted?

Mr. John D. Taylor: The amendments relate specifically to Scotland and to its separate legal system, and it was difficult to follow the Minister's explanation. If they are approved, will they create a situation similar to that which currently obtains in England, Wales and Northern Ireland—or will they offer some advantage to fishermen in Scotland that will not be enjoyed elsewhere in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Michael Stephen: A brave and hardworking group of my constituents earn their living out of Shoreham harbour, by fishing in the English channel. The life of a fishermen is dangerous enough, and I would not wish any regulations or legal powers in the Bill to make it even more dangerous. In exercising any powers that Parliament may see fit to give the Department, I hope that it will give paramount consideration to the safety of our fishermen.

Mr. Morley: No one could disagree with any measure concerning licence variations that is designed to apply fairly and equally to the whole fleet. The Minister mentioned boats operating from foreign ports. On occasions, our own vessels do that for all sorts of reasons. However, a number of foreign boats that fly under a British flag operate exclusively from foreign ports, and fish on British quota. How will the regulations be enforced in the case of boats that spend most of their time outside this country, who will enforce them, and what will be the cost?

Sir Hector Monro: The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) spoke of the "bureaucracy" of the new arrangements, but he must accept that, throughout agriculture and fishing, anything to do with Europe involves a great deal of bureaucracy. When the regulations for the new common agricultural policy are introduced in the not-too-distant future, the hon. Gentleman will see how much additional administration will fall on farmers. As we all know from our daily postbag, there is noticeably more administration involved in keeping up with the modern world.
The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) related bad weather conditions to the work of tribunals. The track record will be based on the year 1991, when many boats fished in bad weather or had to hove to and bring up their gear. That will be allowed for when licences are considered.
On the good side, fishermen may find that the Department is able to offer even more days at sea than they expect. It is wrong to imagine that everyone is on the starting blocks, waiting to run to a tribunal. We must wait to see how the Department operates the arrangements throughout the United Kingdom. I do not believe that they will prove to be as complicated or as severe as hon. Members suggest.
In the examples cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason), the skipper would apply first to the Department. It wants to be as helpful and as flexible as possible. A fisherman would refer to a tribunal only if he felt that the Department's decision was unacceptable. I am certain that the Department will be able to resolve problems such as that mentioned by my hon. Friend.
The right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) asked about the provision's implications for Northern


Ireland fishermen. New clause 5 covers the whole of the United Kingdom, but amendments Nos. 14 and 15 specifically ensure that Scottish law is covered. They will not affect Northern Ireland. New clause 5 and the amendments will prove helpful in effectively implementing the regulations, and I commend them to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 1

RENEWAL OF POWERS UNDER SECTION 4(6)(c)

'. In section 20 of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967, after subsection (2), there shall be inserted—

"(2A) Section 4(6)(c) of this Act shall cease to have effect at the end of each period of twelve months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed unless before the end of that period—
(a) the Ministers have laid before each House of Parliament a statement of their intended exercise of the power conferred by section 4(6)(c); and
(b) that statement has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.".'.—[Mr. Trotter.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Neville Trotter: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take the following: New clause 6—Consultation prior to making orders—

'.—(1) Section 20 of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967 (which makes provision as to orders) shall be amended as follows.

(2) At the beginning of subsection (5) there shall be inserted the words "Except as provided by subsection (SA) below".

(3) After subsection (5) there shall be inserted—
(5A) A statutory insutrment containing an order made under section 4 of this Act shall be of no effect unless
(i) a draft thereof has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament and
(ii) before the laying of such a draft—

(a) the Ministers have consulted with such persons and bodies as seem to them to be representative of operators of fishing vessels and their employees,
(b) the Ministers have laid before both Houses of Parliament a report upon the effect upon operators of fishing vessels and their employees of restricting the time which such vessels may spend at sea, and
(c) any report laid under paragraph (b) above has been approved by resolution of both Houses of Parliament.".'.

Amendment No. 4, in page 2, line 13 [Clause 4], after 'Act', insert `, except section 1(2),'.

Amendment No. 22, in page 2, line 13 leave out from 'shall' to end of line 14 and insert
'not come into force until similar measures are adopted throughout the European Community.'.

Amendment No. 26, in page 2, line 13 leave out from 'shall' to the end of line 14 and insert
'not come into force until a commencement order has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.'

Amendment No. 5, in page 2, line 14, at end insert—

'(1A) Section 1(2) of this Act shall not come into force until a statement by the Ministers of their intended exercise of the powers conferred by this Act has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.'.

Amendment No. 18, in page 2, line 14, at end insert—
'provided that at that time provisions equivalent to those contained in the amendments made by this Act to the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967 have the force of law in each member state of the European Community and that the application of such provisions is not to the disadvantage of British owned and registered vessels; or
(b) on such later date as the Ministers may by order made by statutory instrument appoint, provided that the condition in paragraph (a) of this subsection has been fulfilled.'.

Mr. Trotter: On Second Reading, I and almost every other speaker—and certainly all those closely involved in the fishing industry—expressed concern at the way in which the Bill's powers were extending into the industry's future to an extent that I have not experienced in my time in the House. Those powers can accurately be described as draconian in the way that they could be implemented. That has created unity from one end of the country to the other—to an extent that those of us who know the industry well find remarkable. It was exemplified by the enormous rally held in central hall a few days ago.
I had hoped that the Bill would be amended in Committee to counter those concerns and to make it acceptable, but that did not happen. While I certainly welcome some amendments—such as the appeals procedure—more amendment is needed if the Bill is to be acceptable.
Everyone connected with the industry is well aware of the problems of over-fishing. There has been commendable co-operation in employing technical measures. Some say that, if more time is given to their application, those techniques will go a long way to deal with the problems. However, we must accept that they will not on their own be effective in the time scale that we must consider. Stocks are becoming so depleted that the industry will be not just harmed but destroyed. Major further steps must be taken.
I cannot accept that there is a need for the Bill's powers to be as extensive as they are—hence the reason for new clause 1 and my amendment No. 5. The Bill's powers would enable the Department to say that the whole fishing industry will tie up except on Christmas day. I readily accept that my hon. Friend will not use the power in such an absurd way, but he is nevertheless seeking to take such power for the future without parliamentary scrutiny. Under this power, he could order any boat to be tied up at any time, or all the boats tied up all the time. After the Bill is passed, that will be the end of it, and he will have ultimate power over the whole industry. That cannot be right. I believe that the Minister should be required to give the House details of his proposals on an annual basis: he should be required to demonstrate responsible stewardship of his power to deal with a problem whose existence we all accept.
One of the Bill's peculiarities is the way in which it anticipates what may happen in Brussels—indeed, what will happen there. We all know that the European Community fishing policy is a shambles; many of us would apply the same description to other aspects of Community policy as well, but the fishing policy is a particularly good example, and there is no doubt that it will be reviewed in the months ahead.
What I find it hard to understand is why we are anticipating that review, and seeking powers now to penalise our industry in the expectation of what will presumably happen to the industry in other Community countries. An image is being portrayed of our boats being tied up while their foreign competitors continue to fish outside the harbour entrance. That must be countered, and I hope that the Minister will give us the assurances that we require.
I consider it essential for Parliament to subject such draconian powers to regular scrutiny and the House should have some knowledge of the way in which the Minister intends initially to implement the great power that he is seeking.

Mr. Morley: I support what the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) has said. I believe that such far-reaching measures need some accountability. I urge the House to support amendment No. 18, in the light of some of the points made by the hon. Member. If restrictions are to be placed on fishermen, they should be applied fairly and reasonably across the European Community.
I pay tribute to Conservative Members who have put their names to amendment No. 18. It is not intended to score political points; we recognise that a serious problem exists in the fishing industry, and we have consistently said in our many fishing debates that we accept the existence of conservation difficulties and the need for difficult decisions. We do not wish to duck those decisions, and we are prepared to support the Government in that regard. Such decisions may be hard for the fishing industry to accept, but they are necessary none the less.
We are not convinced, however, that forcing British fishermen to lie up in port while their competitors are free to fish outside the ports concerned is fair reasonable, or, indeed, an effective conservation measure. Last week—on 7 July—3,000 fishermen came down to London to take part in a demonstration organised by the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations and supported by the Scottish Fishermen's Federation. Many hon. Members attended the demonstration, and many were lobbied by fishermen who had taken a day off work to make their case known.
Those who saw the demonstration were left in no doubt of the strength of feeling in the fishing industry about what the Bill will do to livelihoods and communities. There is almost a feeling of betrayal: our fishermen alone will face restrictions that will not affect their European counterarts, and that seems hard to justify.
I am sure that many hon. Members will have received a great many letters from fishermen's organisations all over the country. The National Federation of Fishermen, which speaks for many English and Welsh fishermen, said in a letter sent to every Member of Parliament:
Why is it that only British fishermen are subject to unilataral restrictions when other Europeans are not? The bitter truth is that flag of convenience vessels will have the ability to land abroad unchecked, and the only fishermen suffering the restrictions will be British fishermen, not Spanish, French, Dutch or even the Republic of Ireland.
The Cornwall sea fisheries committee wrote:
Most importantly, there is no mention of similar restrictions on foreign vessels fishing in British waters. Fishermen feel aggrieved that, whilst their activities will be curtailed, foreign vessels will be free to fish in our waters … Many vessels, particularly the smaller ones, will simply not be able to earn a living under the Bill's restrictions.

5.45 pm
The North East Fishing Forum, a combination of local government and fishing communities over a wide area, wrote:
Local authorities are concerned that there will be grave damage to local interests. Small inshore fleets such as those operating between the Tyne and the Tweed could be particularly disadvantaged by a system based on past performance, because of the tradition of voluntary restraint already practised.
The South Eastern Fishermen's Protection Association also wrote to say that the measures were unfair and unilateral, and that they discriminated against our fishing fleet.
There are many more examples from around the country. All that shows that the industry has never been so united by a single issue, which is an achievement in itself. The reason why the industry is so united—an industry that has traditionally operated in different sectors, whose members have not always co-operated as well as they might have done—is that every fishing community in the country faces a severe threat.
We shall discuss other amendments which present alternatives to days-at-sea restrictions. I hope that, even at this stage, the Minister will be willing to accept that the fishermen's organisations are anxious to co-operate with him and his Ministry to introduce workable measures that will deal with the problems of over-capacity and the need for conservation without the introduction of draconian powers.
The main thrust of many of the amendments in the group—especially amendment No. 18—is this. If there is an argument for forcing fishermen to remain in port for a certain number of days per week—we can debate that—it is only right and proper for the measure involved to be implemented through the Council of Ministers and the European Community, and to apply to every fishing fleet in the Community and every fishing fleet that is part of the common fisheries policy.
I do not believe that that is the way forward; I feel that we should have a proper decommissioning scheme, allied to a package of measures to deal with the problem. It is important, however, for the many hon. Members who are present tonight representing their constituents—local fishermen and their families, and the industries that depend on fishermen—to make one thing clear. If there is to be fairness, and if restrictions are to carry any credibility—it is generally accepted that they will have a drastic effect on fishermen's livelihood—those restrictions should apply across the board. In its present form, the Bill does not allow for that.
The amendment gives the House an opportunity to decide that, if the Minister has made a case for the restrictions and gets the Bill through, it should not be enacted until other members states have introduced similar measures. Any restrictions that we impose should be applied equally and fairly to every EC fishing fleet. Our fishermen must not be put at an unfair disadvantage, as they will be if this measure is passed without amendment.

Mr. Iain Sproat: I support strongly the new clause that has been moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter). A fishermen's delegation came to see me last Tuesday. Its members expressed deep concern and deep hostility to the Bill. The


fishermen of Harwich are totally opposed to the Government's proposals. I was deeply impressed by the strength of their arguments.
The fishermen of Harwich recognise, as do fishermen in all parts of the country, the need for conservation. They all accept that fish stocks must be conserved. They do not, therefore, object to conservation. They object, however, to the way in which the Bill proposes to enforce conservation. They followed, as I did, in detail the consideration of the Bill in Committee. Not a great deal of what happened in Committee has convinced them that they ought to change their minds.
The fact that the Bill came before the House while consultations were still going on with the industry did not help. I know that the Government will say that merely the details were discussed, whereas the Bill is concerned with the principle. However, fishermen's minds were not put at rest. They felt that the result of the consultations would not lead to the Bill being amended.
The fishermen in my constituency fear a huge and drastic cut in their income. They fear, too, that many families who have been fishing for generations will be forced to leave an industry that they love and that the decommissioning funds are pitifully inadequate. As the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) said, they cannot see the justice, fairness and rightness in these measures being imposed on British fishermen while all the other European Community fishermen are unaffected by them. They believe that foreign vessels will not be bound by any conservation measures that are introduced, with the result that the British industry will soon be decimated. Foreign vessels will then take over what was once the British fishing industry.
I hope that the Minister will be able to provide some assurance that all the other member states of the European Community will speedily introduce measures that lead to the imposition of similar conservation requirements on their fishing industries.
I share my constituents' fears about the Bill. That is why I strongly support what my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth said. The very least that the Government can do in an attempt to assuage the fears and concerns of the fishermen is to say that they will look again at this question in a year's time and that, if the fishermen's fears are proved to be correct and have substance, the House will be given the opportunity to amend the clause.

Mr. John D. Taylor: When I spoke on Second Reading I stressed why we were concerned about the implications of the Bill. I mentioned that it was not just the Bill that caused us concern but the powers that we were giving to the Minister to exercise without our approval. The purpose of the new clause is to give back to the House the power to approve what the Minister does as a result of this measure. It is tremendously important that all hon. Members should have a say in the implementation of the Bill.
I find it difficult to accept many of the Bill's provisions. One relates to the mandatory fine of £50,000 if fishermen are found to be in breach of the measure. That fine would not be affected by the new clause. It would stand. That is one reason why I do not like the Bill.
The second reason why I do not like the Bill was mentioned by the hon. Member for Glanford and

Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley)—that the provisions of the Bill do not apply to other European Community fishermen. We in the ports of Kilkeel, Portavogie, Donaghadee and Ardglass have a particular concern in this respect when it comes to Republic of Ireland boats. I was glad to see that at the beginning of this week the fisheries spokesman for the Social Democratic and Labour party, the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady), aired his concern in an article in Irish News. He expressed great concern about the fact that, if the Bill is passed, the fishing fleet in Northern Ireland will be seriously threatened by fishing fleets from the Republic of Ireland.
There is no way in which I can support the Bill unless the Minister can assure the House, especially the fishermen of Northern Ireland, that he has already held consultations with the fishing authorities in Dublin to ensure that they implement similar legislation that will apply to both Irish boats and British boats in the Irish sea fishing areas.
We hear a great deal about the Anglo-Irish Agreement. As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that has brought about stalemate in Northern Ireland since 1985. At last we are beginning to make political progress in Northern Ireland. Discussions are now being held between Dublin and London. I hope that the Minister can therefore assure us that he has been in discussion with Dublin, has brought to its attention the measures which are to apply to the United Kingdom and those which will apply specifically to Northern Ireland and that Dublin will therefore agree to introduce identical measures to apply to Irish vessels. If he cannot do so, there is no way that I can support the Bill.
I mentioned also on Second Reading the day on which fishermen will not be allowed to fish. How will that day be decided? Will there be a different day for different ports? Will there be a different day, depending upon the type of fish that fishermen try to catch, or will there be a different day according to region of the United Kingdom? There is already one day in Northern Ireland upon which most of our fishing fleets do not fish. It applies to parts of Scotland, too. That day is Sunday.
If there is to be one day on which we cannot fish, that day must continue to be Sunday for us. If it is to be any other day, it means that we shall be unable to fish on two days of the week. Therefore, we want the Minister to clarify whether it will be one standard day throughout the whole of the United Kingdom or whether that day will vary according to region.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but if he looks at the lead clause he will see that it has to do with the timings, not with the days when one may or may not fish. It relates to how long the legislation will last before it is brought back here for renewal, or otherwise. The hon. Gentleman must address that point.

Mr. Roger Moate: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As the selection list incorporates a number of other amendments, including the nature of the restrictions to apply within the United Kingdom and to other European Community countries, is it not in order to dwell upon the nature of the conditions as well as the timing referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) in new clause 1?

Madam Deputy Speaker: It will be in order provided that hon. Members relate the issue strictly to one of the


group, but it was my understanding that the right hon. Member for Strangford (M r. Taylor) was dealing with the new clause only.

6 pm

Mr. Tim Rathbone: Like other hon. Members, I welcome this proof of the Government's commitment toconservation and especially to the conservation of fish stocks. It is remarkable—other hon. Members have remarked on the fact—that fishermen also welcome it.
Worries arise because of the nature of the Bill. It is an enabling Bill and, like all such Bills, it leaves many questions unanswered. When questions are unanswered, worries exist and may be magnified. I certainly found that to be the case in my conversations with fishermen in the port of Newhaven. Although we have had good discussions and although I provided them with as much information as I could to try to explain the details of the Bill, which may have allayed some of their fears, there still remains considerable worry in their minds. fishermen's worries are magnified by the lack of direct information in the Bill about how it will bite.
In my short intervention, I hope, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you will allow me to dwell on all elements of the amendments selected. I hope that the Minister can at least give some information to allay some of the worries, especially those mentioned by the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor). How will the fishing day restrictions apply? How will they be chosen? How are they to apply to different fishing areas if they are to be differentiated in various parts of the coast of the British isles? How are they to apply to different sizes of boat? Questions are left unanswered even on that detail. In what circumstances will action be taken under the Bill's enabling powers?
As the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) stressed, the overriding concern is for an even playing field. Can one refer to an even playing field when talking about fishing? That may be mixing metaphors, but that is what we are talking about. We are seeking even-handedness between the fishing fleets of all the nations of the European Community.
For the sake of the continued support of our fishing fleets and fishermen for the principle of conservation, it is imperative that they feel that their efforts to conserve are matched by the efforts of others and that any actions taken to make it necessary for them to act in a way in which they might not like will also be imposed on other fleets.
With that menu of comment ringing in his ears, may I ask the Minister for some reassurance on those terribly important points? If such reassurance is not given, I fear that it is highly unlikely that fishermen will support the Bill or obey any orders made under its enabling powers, and we do not want to pass such legislation.

Dr. Godman: I promise to be brief. I support the new clause and was pleased to hear the intervention by the hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Sproat).
With regard to amendment No. 18, the Government could have avoided some of the problems into which they have sailed if, under Standing Order No. 94, they had agreed to the setting up of a Special Standing Committee which would have met no more than four times. Such a Special Standing Committee can take evidence from interested parties, and I think that it would have greatly

helped our fishermen if it had been set up. However, the Government chose another route, which is unfortunate for all involved.
I have been around the fishing industry almost all my life, and I believe that, given the urgency of the need to conserve the dwindling fish stocks, our fishermen would have accepted the draconian measures if they were to be applied uniformly throughout the whole of the European Community. As I said in Committee, it has been said ad nauseam that there are too many fishermen chasing too few fish, and our fishermen know that as well as anyone else. I believe that they would be willing to accept the measures if they were to apply as rigorously to Irish or Spanish fishermen or to others.
The right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) said that he hoped that the Minister would speak to his counterpart in Dublin. It is much more important that he speaks to the Spanish Fisheries Minister because—

Mr. Rathbone: And the Belgian Minister.

Dr. Godman: And the Belgian Minister but, without sounding too ethnocentric, the Spanish punch holes in any Communitywide regulations. Anyone who knows any-thing about the Spanish fishing fleets knows that, which is why amendment No. 18 is so important. The Spanish fishing fleets and their operators encourage their skippers to break the rules. We know about the insurance clubs of skippers and owners in Vigo. If a skipper is caught off the west coast of Scotland or Ireland and hauled in and fined in the sheriff courts or in an Irish court, the fine will be met from the moneys in the club barrel in Vigo.
The hon. Member for Harwich was absolutely right to say that the measures must be uniformly applied throughout all the fishing nations of the European Community. If they are not, there will always be resistance among our fishermen. If there is uniformity, I genuinely believe that our fishermen, from Shetland to Cornwall, will accept them, but they must apply across the Community. Failure to ensure that will mean that our fishermen should challenge the legislation if it is passed.

Rev. Ian Paisley: While fully agreeing with what the hon. Gentleman said and standing on the principle of absolute uniformity across all nations, I must say that the menace of the southern Ireland fishermen to the Northern Ireland fishermen is greater. While the Fisheries Minister from the Republic was prepared to close a blind eye to what was happening in northern waters, the northern authority—the Secretary of State—was quick to try to make every fisherman from Northern Ireland conform. We need not only uniformity but a power to ensure conformity.

Dr. Godman: If I dare say so in your presence, Madam Deputy Speaker, "closing a blind eye" is a very Irish expression. I take the hon. Gentleman's point that there are discrepancies between north and south. I assure him, however, that, for all their skills, the Irish have nothing on the Spanish fishing vessel skippers—and owners, because the skippers are encouraged by the owners to punch holes in the regulations.
On this occasion, we may need to fly in the face of article 3 of the mortally wounded Maastricht treaty, which argues for subsidiarity in these matters. If we are to have regulations that severely restrict our fishermen's incomes, and if the only way to ensure uniformity in the policing of


fishing activity in EC waters is to have the rules applied by Brussels, so be it. If a domestic Parliament cannot control all the fishing activities in its waters, let us give Brussels the power to do so.
I believe in regional policing. This Parliament ought to be able to stipulate who can fish when and where in United Kingdom territorial waters. But, if that is not to be the case, and if we are to have uniformity in the policing of our fishermen's activities, the regulations must be applied throughout the Community without fear or favour.
This is a bad Bill. It imposes harsh restrictions on our fishermen in advance of the deliberations that will take place concerning the mid-term review of the common fisheries policy. I am not a lawyer, but I believe that, if the Bill goes through, our fishermen or their associations will eventually be able to challenge it at the European Court of Justice because it discriminates unfairly against them. The House should support new clause 1 and amendment No. 18.

Mr. Stephen: I have no doubt that the fishermen of the United Kingdom accept the need for conservation—indeed, their livelihood depends upon it. It is essential, however, that conservation measures are seen to apply fairly, as between them and their counterparts elsewhere in the European Community.
The principle of conservation must depend for its effectiveness on a large number of fishermen cutting down their effort a little, not on British fishermen cutting down their effort a lot, allowing all the others to continue to fish at the same or at similar levels. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to give me an assurance that, in exercising the powers that he seeks today, his Department will have careful regard not only to the legislative provisions applying to the fishermen of other member countries but to the extent to which those provisions are enforced on those fishermen by the authorities of their own member states.

Mr. Salmond: I propose to refer to new clause 6 and amendment No. 22, standing in the names of members of the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru.
The hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) certainly put his finger on an important point in tabling new clause 1. It would be remarkable if we had to write into a Bill a measure to enforce consultation but, given the present circumstances of the fishing industry, that is the stage that we have reached.
In new clause 6, we seek to do the same thing but to cast the net wider and to make the procedures rather more rigorous. The proposal would ensure that no statutory instrument containing an order could or would be enforced until certain procedures had been undertaken by Fisheries Ministers. A draft order would have to be laid before both Houses of Parliament for approval and could not be approved until Fisheries Ministers had carried out certain tasks, the first of which would be to consult the industry properly about the proposals.
I repeat that it is remarkable that we should have to seek to write that into legislation. I do not know whether fisheries Ministers are aware of the bitterness that they have engendered by proceeding with primary legislation during a consultation period. We have had much



experience in recent years of so-called consultation. I know that the Under-Secretary will understand an analogy with the hospital opt-out legislation for Scotland, in respect of which many of us felt the consultation process was no more than a matter of form—a process to be undergone before the Government took the decision that they had always intended to take. But I cannot recall another occasion on which primary legislation has been proceeded with before the formal consultation period has ended.
For the fishing community, that adds insult to injury. So devoid of sensitivity have Fisheries Ministers been that we have reached the stage at which the provision of proper, effective and thorough consultation throughout the industry should be written into the legislation before greater powers are conferred on Ministers.
The second duty that Ministers would have to take on board under the terms of new clause 6 before being seeking to exercise draconian powers would be the obligation to conduct an analysis of the economic impact of their proposals on the fishing community. There is a major divergence of view between the Government, who believe that the impact of the enabling legislation will be marginal—I have even heard official sources argue that, because fishermen are so boxed in by quotas anyway, it does matter about the days-at-sea restrictions—and fishermen, who believe that the Bill will constitute another serious imposition on them and will have a serious impact on their ability to make a living from the sea.
Let us contrast the fishing and farming, to which the Under-Secretary referred. We lack the net income statistics for the fishing industry which are available for agriculture which would enable us to judge the impact of any measure or series of measures on fishermen's livelihood. We know what the overall net catches are and we know their value, but we do not have net income figures, which are important in judging whether a measure such as this can be borne by the fishing communities.
I hope that those who support new clause I will not be fobbed off by vague assurances that Ministers will occasionally turn up in the House and make statements on the fishing industry—no doubt late at night, at a time inconvenient to hon. Members. The hon. Member for Tynemouth should ensure that we bind and gag those Ministers by placing a statutory duty on them rather than relying on assurances which may not, in the end, amount to much.
Amendment No. 22 is similar to amendment No. 18, which stands in the name of Labour Members. That amendment goes to the very heart of people's concern about the Bill. I cannot think of any other United Kingdom industry that the Government seem so determined by their actions to place at a disadvantage in relation to its European counterparts.
I have already said that the lack of consultation, and the decision to go ahead during the consultation process, has provoked great anger in the fishing community. What outrage, then, was provoked by the decision to impose on the United Kingdom a draconian and potentially punitive measure that was not to be imposed on other EC fleets? That goes to the heart of the questions that hon. Members representing fishing communities have to ask about the Bill.
I hope that I will not do the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), an injustice or embarrass him when I say that, if we had been discussing the Bill a year ago, I have no doubt


that the fishing communities would have been able to rely on his vote in the Lobby this evening. In the past, they could have relied on the support of Alick Buchanan-Smith, the late right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside. I somehow doubt whether the current hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch) will carry out his responsibilities towards the fishing communities with the dedication shown by his late predecessor.
We have seen the transformation of the hon. Member for Dumfries from a Back-Bench Member from Scotland, concerned about the fishing community and prepared to match that concern with his vote in the Lobby on many occasions, to a Minister who, I am certain, has grave private doubts about the scope of the Bill and the manner in which it is being introduced. He must also have real concerns about the anger and frustration that the legislation has provoked in fishing communities. I hope that Conservative Members who represent fishing communities will hear the trials of the Minister in mind when they vote on these criticial amendments.
It is essential that hon. Members do not simply respond to pressure in the fishing communities by turning up in the Chamber and making a speech. The issue will come to the crunch shortly in the Lobbies. I hope that all hon. Members who are genuinely concerned about the future of the fishing industry will match that concern with their behaviour in the Lobbies.

Mr. David Harris: My opposition to the Bill is pretty well known. I believe that I have been joined by an increasing number of my colleagues who, perhaps rather late ill the day, have woken up to the significance of the measure. Three Conservative Members voted against the Bill on Second Reading. In this debate, sufficient hon. Members have spoken to voice their own deep unease and the passionate anger felt by the fishermen against the Bill. That anger was demonstrated in last week's mass lobby to which reference has already been made.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) has done the industry, the House and the Government a great service by tabling his new clause. The other amendments in the group have been similarly beneficial. I believe that the House will be in difficulty later this evening. Clearly, the Government have listened to many of the representations that many of us have made with some vigour over the past few weeks and days and, literally, over the past few hours.
I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will approach the group of amendments in a helpful and constructive mood. That will present difficulties, because we will have to take a decision bearing in mind what he says. We must decide whether we accept his undertakings or whether we will support the new clause. I will say only that I will listen with the utmost care to what my hon. Friend says, in the same way that I have listened to what right hon. and hon. Members have said during the debate.
I am absolutely convinced that the Government have got the message from the Conservative Back Benches, from the Opposition Benches and from the industry, that the Bill in its present form is absolutely and utterly unacceptable. The reasons why it is unacceptable were rehearsed by myself and others on Second Reading, but they are to a large extent encapsulated in this group of amendments.
The Bill is unacceptable because of the unilateral nature of the action that the Government propose to take. There is also what I regard as an affront to parliamentary practice and scrutiny. If the Bill is not amended, the Government will have a blank cheque. Elsewhere, I have used the analogy that the proposal in the Bill is rather like the Chancellor of the Exchequer desiring to take powers in a mere enabling Bill to raise tax to any level that he saw fit without further recourse to Parliament.
When my hon. Friend the Minister of State replies to the debate, I hope that he will address some of those criticisms. At this stage, I will say only that I will listen to him with the greatest care and interest.

Mr. Nick Ainger: I support new clause 1, but I want to address my remarks to amendment No. 18. The right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) mentioned the problem of Irish fishermen competing with their southern Irish colleagues. Welsh fishermen also compete with their southern Irish colleagues. On the day of the mass lobby, I spoke to shell fishermen from Milford Haven and the west coast of Wales. They share their fishing grounds with their Irish colleagues. They lay their pots virtually alongside those of their Irish equivalents. They wanted to know how the Government could justify their being prevented from carrying out their lawful business when their Irish colleagues were allowed to fish on the same grounds. They believed that that was nonsense.
Undoubtedly, the Bill is discriminatory between the Welsh and Irish and, as other hon. Members have said, between the British, French and Spanish. It was very interesting that, the day after the mass lobby, the skipper of a French trawler was arrested in the western approaches off Milford Haven and his vessel brought into a Pembroke dock. He was fined £2,000 for fishing with undersized nets. That was his second offence; he was cautioned the first time. Although that skipper was prosecuted in a British court, he was prosecuted under EC regulations. The level playing field or nice mill pond applied, and it was accepted that there was no discriminatory element in that case.
We must ask whether the Bill is fair, whether it is reasonable and whether it will be effective. The answer to those questions is no in every case. It is not fair to the Welsh shell fishermen who compete unfairly with their Irish colleagues. It is certainly not reasonable to expect British fishermen to try to earn a living when their continental colleagues regularly catch what is basically the British fishermen's livelihood. It certainly will not be effective because, as we heard today and in Standing Committee, there will be an intensification of effort.
My shell fishermen have told me that they currently work eight or 12 hours a day before returning home. However, if they are to be restricted, they will work 24 hours a day or for 48 hours on the trot before returning to port. The reduction in effort will not be effective.
I remind the Minister that, although I am sure that the Government received correct legal advice at the time of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 in which, with the general support of the House, they tried to outlaw the quota hoppers, the legal advice was that the legislation was not discriminatory and that the Government would be able to get it through the European Court. However, that was proved to be wrong. The European Court found the legislation to be discriminatory because it stated that the Spanish, French or Belgians could not own British fishing boats without those companies having a majority of


British directors. It was therefore discriminatory. I have not sought legal advice, but I try to be logical about such matters. Surely the Bill is discriminatory because it says to British fishermen, "You can't do that, but your Irish, French and Spanish colleagues can." That is why it is a bad Bill, and this is why we shall support amendment No. 18.

Mr. Anthony Steen: I have in my constituency 88 miles of Devon coastline, probably one of the most beautiful areas in the country. The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) was good enough to come down to Brixham port and say some helpful words. I am grateful to him for that. That coastline supports not only Brixham fishermen who are beam trawlermen but fishermen from Dartmouth and Salcombe who are involved in the crab and lobster industries. I speak as a Member who has been following the deliberations very closely.
I pay great tribute to my hon. Friends the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who have been extremely courteous and have considered every possible way to help me and the fishermen of south Devon. I should like publicly to record how grateful I am to them for their help and assistance in respect of a difficult Bill.
On Friday, I tabled two amendments, which have not been selected but which would have slotted in between amendments Nos. 26 to 28. They would have had an effect similar to that of new clause 1 and would have delayed the operation of the legislation for two months rather than one month. My amendments insisted that the House had an opportunity to delay an affirmative order by a further month, which would have given enough time for the other countries concerned to get their house in order.
My concern is twofold. First, I do not believe that action on our Government's part should in any way damage any fishermen's livelihood unless we are satisfied that the French, Spanish and Dutch have done something not identical but similar, which fits into the package that the Bill proposes. Secondly, no fishermen should have his boat tied up and be told that he cannot fish on certain days unless something similar happens in France, Holland and Spain. Unless the Minister of State can say something on those two points, Conservative Members will be placed in serious difficulties.
My hon. Friends have given me every opportunity to explain my problem to them, and I again pay tribute to their courtesy and the time that they have spent trying to explain their problem to me. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will satisfy the House on both points. If he does so, we shall be delighted, because he will have achieved a tremendous victory. If he cannot do that, he will place many Conservative Members in some personal difficulties. I hope that the message is loud and clear to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: I sense a carefully stage-managed situation arising. Conservative Members have been so shocked by the pressure of their fishermen's hostility to the Bill that they are now having to stage an elaborate scene by putting demands to the Minister, some of which he

might or might not grant, so that they can then go away and say, "We have won a great victory; great concessions were made."
That will not be enough, because the principle of the Bill is bad. The Bill will not work. It will not be accepted by the industry. Indeed, it is a dictatorial imposition on the industry. It is not good enough for Conservative Members to manufacture a synthetic crisis to put pressure on the Minister and then say that they are satisfied with small crumbs that they might get from his table.
New clause 1 is a sensible measure, but it does not go far enough, because the principle of annual renewal allows us to bring pressure on the Minister between annual renewals to do what he should have done in the first place and take other measures which would more effectively reduce pressure on fish stocks. It is only if that is the basis of operations on new clause 1 that it is acceptable.
The heart of the matter is quite simple. The Minister is imposing that dictatorial measure on the fishing industry because of his failure to introduce a decommissioning scheme. He has denied that, but the July-August 1992 issue of "France-Eco-Pece" states that Commissioner Marin himself says:
the British face the problem that their fishing grounds are badly depleted and Britain is the one country in the Community that has the worst problem with too large a fishing fleet. Had they only reduced their fleet, say five years ago, as did many other countries, the situation would not be so critical today.
Had the Government introduced a decommissioning scheme when we were asking them to introduce one, they would not have had to impose the measure on the industry. The new clause might be useful if it allows us to press for an improvement in the decommissioning scheme—a bigger and better decommissioning scheme—which will act urgently on the problem. The one that the Minister has produced as the quid pro quo for the measure is not good enough and will not have a substantial enough effect on the size of the fleet.
The next point that the measure allows us to argue for is more technical conservation measures. It is important to know that they are the best way of approaching the conservation problem. They are far more effective in conserving stocks, which is what the Bill is supposed to be about—it will not have that effect, but it is supposed to.
It is important to note that the industry has been pressing more energetically for technical measures and proper conservation than the Department itself. The list supplied by the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations includes the increased selectivity of nets, the one-net rule, bans on the twin-rig trawl, bans on the French dredge, restrictions on the shape of nets to ensure the escape of juvenile fish, bans on industrial fishing, and a licensing scheme for shellfish. The industry even wanted a higher mesh size in the Irish sea—namely, 80 mm—than the 75 mm that the Government imposed.
The industry has been at the forefront of pressing for those technical conservation measures, which are far better. Let us have an advance down that path, because it will apply far more directly to the cause of the problem than the overfishing that is decimating stocks by catching fish that are too small. Let us therefore have the power to press for that every year through new clause 1. It allows us to advance those two causes, which are far more important than the Minister's Bill. The measure is not enough; therefore, we need to go to the extent set out in amendment No. 18.
It is a bad Bill. It will be acceptable only if it is felt to apply fairly to all competing fishing industries. It is no use stopping British fishermen going to sea if stocks are to be pillaged by effectively controlling efforts by competitor countries in the EC. What answer is that to the conservation problem if it just leaves the ground open to fishing fleets which have not applied the same effective technical measures as our industries? They have been backward in that respect.
I hope that if the Minister makes a minor concession Conservative Members will not go away feeling that they have done something for the industry. The only concession that will be acceptable—the only concession that their fishermen will accept—is an assurance that there is to be a level playing field, or a level fishing ground. Amendment No. 18 would provide for this measure to come into effect only at the same time as similar measures to restrain fishing fleets competing for the same stocks and, in the process, over fishing. That is the only thing that will satisfy the fishing industry, which demonstrated in force in London last week to impress on Members of Parliament, on both sides of the House, the concern from fishing constituencies.
Our legislation must come into force at the same time as similar measures introduced by our European competitors. The Minister himself has said that there can be proper conservation only with the consent and support of the fishing industry. Well, this Bill does not have that consent and support; it has the total hostility of the fishing industry. It will secure the consent of the fishing industry only if that industry feels that it is fair, if similar provisions apply to other people who are doing far more damage because of the lack of effective control in their home ports.
What about the clashes between French fishermen and British fishermen in the south-west? What about the clashes between Grimsby fishermen and Dutch beam trawlers in the North sea? Are we to say that our only answer is to prevent our vessels from putting to sea, so that they will not he attacked by French and Dutch vessels? Is it the Government's case that, if there is no competition, the problem will go away? That is no answer. It is not even a proper means of securing conservation.
If the Minister is to make the case that the Bill will help conservation, let him see that that is done in the only effective way—by ensuring that such measures apply to all. That is why amendment No. 18 should be supported. If Conservative Members who have uttered such professions of attachment to and support for the fishing industry have any guts or principles, they will support it. That is the only way to make the Bill acceptable to the industry, which regards a days-at-sea limitation as a dictatorial imposition. No such provision applies to any other industry, and in this case the proposal is to apply without compensation. It is very unfair. Only agreement to what we are proposing will make this Bill acceptable as a last, desperate measure.

Mr. Keth Mans: I do not want to rehash the arguments on new clause I and amendment No. 18 that we have heard already, except to say that they relate to the two parts of the Bill that concern me most—the wideness of its powers, and the fact that the other European Community members who are involved in fishing will not necessarily have to abide by the same rules.
The latter point relates particularly to the situation in Fleetwood. The majority of vessels fishing in the Irish sea belong to fleets that are not British. Thus, any measures that we might take to control our efforts by way of a time scheme will be much less effective there than in the North sea and elsewhere. That fact alone makes the measure even less acceptable to British fishermen, particularly those from my port of Fleetwood. They know that, even if they put up with the restrictions, the conservation effect will be very much reduced by the fact that many other member states use other methods, which, according to the evidence of the specialist advisers to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, are less effective. For that reason alone, we need to do more, and amendment No. 18 and new clause 1 go quite a long way down that road.
We need a statutory procedure by which vessels on which this Bill will have a detrimental effect can appeal against the Minister's decision. In addition, any provisions for restrictions over and above those that the fishing fleet, particularly vessels off the west coast, had to endure during 1991 will have to be introduced by way of amendable affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament. That is the only way forward. That is the only way of ensuring that we can see for ourselves the detailed proposals of Ministers to deal with the problem of conservation. I agree with many hon. Members on both sides of the House that the powers in the Bill are far too wide.
If we go down this road, we shall give our own Ministers a bit more leverage in Brussels. We shall be able to insist on equivalent action by other member states fishing in our waters and nearby. I refer, for example, to the Spaniards, the French and the Dutch. We shall be able to say to the Commission that we are prepared to reduce our effort, but only if we see that others are taking equally effective measures. Without a commitment of that sort, I cannot see how the objective—the conservation of stocks—will be achieved, especially in the Irish sea, where the majority of fish are taken by foreign vessels.
New clause 1 and amendment No. 18 have a lot going for them, and I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us along the lines I have suggested. In fishing matters, we and other European member states must be treated on an equal footing. Before the provisions of this Bill are enacted, we must have some idea of the particular proposals that the Government intend to bring forward.

Mr. Steen: My hon. Friend has mentioned the British register of ships. Is he aware that it includes Spanish, French and Dutch ships catching our quota? Does he have a view on that?

Mr. Mans: I am fully aware of that fact. We shall have to find a way of ensuring effectiveness if those vessels decide to tie up in foreign ports. If our quota is to be effective in the case of vessels from other countries fishing that quota, we shall have to find a means of ensuring that those vessels abide by the same rules.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: The lobbying by fishermen from all over the country demonstrated the depth of real anger and concern in the industry about the provisions of this Bill, and it has met with some success. As the fishermen see the concern being expressed by Conservative Members—much of it not expressed on Second Reading—they can feel that they have achieved something, and to that extent they can congratulate themselves.
However, expressions of concern are not the same as delivery of the goods. We shall wait to hear the Minister's reply—what it is that has caused the buzz of excitement on the Government Benches. Or is it a buzz of concern as Conservative Members feel trapped in a dilemma somewhere between career and action?
I fear that the Minister will simply offer reassurance. Yet we need to have measures included in the Bill to guarantee that the actions for which we have asked will be taken. The fishermen I have met will not be reassured by anything less than measures written into the Bill. We shall see what the Minister has to say.
Anyone who attended the rally in central hall and saw the black and gold Cornish rugby shirts spread across the audience will appreciate that the concern in Cornwall about the Bill probably generated the greatest show of strength in London on an issue of this nature since the tin mines were threatened and the tin miners marched through the streets of London. The attendance from Cornwall was extraordinary, and I shall explain in a moment why the fishermen, particularly from Cornwall, turned out in such numbers.
The new clauses and amendments in this group will not achieve changes to the Bill that would lead me to vote for it on Third Reading. They do not tackle the basic inequity of the Bill or its basic faults, but at least they would provide a moment at which the Executive could be made answerable to the House on their detailed proposals. That is better than simply giving Ministers powers to go away and act without ever having to answer to the representatives of fishermen—or, indeed, the fishermen themselves.
The Bill provides for no effective consultation. Indeed, there was no effective consultation about it. The measures in the Bill were published even before the consultation period was complete, yet the Minister resists having to come back to the House when the detailed measures are introduced.
The Bill contains no effective conservation measure. It will lead to more intensive fishing. It will certainly lead to other countries stepping up their fishing effort. The Bill will not be effective as a conservation measure. If the Minister believes that it will be effective, he should come back to the House and explain it when the detail is before the House.
The Bill will bankrupt many in the industry. It will bankrupt many owners of small boats, who have fished for generations. I understand that, in Mevagissey in my constituency, many of the boats are already up for sale. The fishermen do not believe that the boats can be viable or that they can earn an income. That is in an area where there is literally no hope of alternative employment for the great majority of the men who at present go out fishing. Yet the Minister is not prepared to come back to the House to justify the detailed measures which those men believe could put them out of work and make them no longer able to support their families.
There is a lack of measures comparable to the days-at-sea regulations in other European countries. The fishermen feel that they will simply surrender their livelihood to fishermen in other countries. They feel that they will surrender, not preserve, the fish stock. Yet the Minister is not prepared to come back to the House to debate in detail the provisions that he will seek to make in future.
Amendment No. 18 contains the further proviso that none of the conservation measures makes sense unless other European countries do the same, and therefore the Government should not take them. I understand that the Minister will seek comparable action from other European countries. I make it clear that it would not be acceptable to the industry or the House if by comparable action the Minister meant conservation measures such as decommissioning or gear changes. It would not be acceptable if other countries took such measures while we imposed the days-at-sea regulations.That would not be comparable. The impact on individual fishermen would be to bankrupt fishermen in Britain but help those in other countries. I hope that the Minister will be clear about what he means by "comparable" internationally.
The Bill will never meet the needs of the industry, conservation or equity, but new clause I and amendment No. 18 will at least provide a chance of equity between countries and enable the House to bring the Minister to book on the detailed proposals. New clause 1 and amendment No. 18 are important. If the Minister seriously intends to take a big step towards achieving the aim of the amendments, he should undertake to amend the Bill at a later stage so that hon. Members do not have to rely on reassurances which may not be delivered in practice by the Minister's successors, even if the Minister genuinely intends to deliver them.
Hon. Members should bear it in mind that, if it was announced that our income was to be cut for every day that the Government decided that we should stay at home for our extended summer recess, no matter what Opposition and Conservative Members said, there might be more disagreement about the length of the recess. Of course Ministers would not expect to get away with that, and they should not expect to get away with treating fishermen in the same way.

Mr. Moate: The new clause proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) suggests that the Bill should be subject to annual renewal. That shows how extreme the Government's proposal is. It is extraordinary to propose that the British fishing fleet should be tied up in port for much of its time. Many of us can recall the impact of the three-day week in other contexts.

Mr. Curry: indicated dissent.

Mr. Moate: My hon. Friend the Minister reacts against that, but that is the proposal. I do not suggest that it is an unacceptable proposal—the next interesting fact is that virtually every fisherman to whom I have spoken accepts in principle the need for further conservation and effort control. But the proposal is extraordinary.
No one should be in any doubt about the far-reaching nature of the days at sea regulations. It is even more extraordinary that we should ask British vessels to be tied up in port while we do not place similar restrictions on our common market partners and other fishing vessels fishing in our waters and therefore often taking from the British quota. That is why I have added my name to amendment No. 18, which has been taken with the new clause 1 for the debate.
Amendment No. 18 argues for a level playing field. The British fishing industry accepts the need for conservation. There seems to be universal agreement that conservation measures must be taken, but surely it is self-evident that we


shall not achieve conservation of British stocks without the full-hearted co-operation of the British fishing industry. It is surely also self-evident that that climate does not prevail as we reach this point in the legislation.
It would have been much better if we had paused for further consultation with the industry and sought agreement on how to implement conservation measures. We are taking the Report stage today without a great deal of time to consider the amendments that have been tabled or to discuss with the industry how best to implement the Bill.
I accept that there have been rumours of efforts to meet some of the genuine concerns of the House, but unless we can translate that concern into positive legislative intent, it is extremely difficult to respond other than by saying that we must have it in the Bill.
Amendment No. 18 is sensible. It might not be legally perfect—I am aware that Governments are in the habit of saying that the drafting of an amendment lacks something so they cannot accept it—but the Bill has a long way to go. My hon. Friend could accept the amendment, or he could accept the principle behind it and incorporate it in legislation in another place. I know that he wants to be helpful, so can he assure us that he accepts the principle of the amendment? Otherwise—[Interruption] If my on. Friend says that he accepts the principle of the amendment—

Mr. Austin Mitchell: He has not said that he accepts the principle of the amendment.

Mr. Moate: If he cannot accept the principle, those of us who signed the amendment in good faith will have no choice but to support it.
Understanding what is at stake, I hope that my hon. Friend will do his utmost to help the House and the fishing industry. There is a genuine desire to make further conservation measures work, but he is asking too much of British fishermen if he thinks that he can apply days-at-sea regulations so that British vessles are tied up while French, Dutch, Spanish and other nations' vessels are free to fish in our fishing grounds. If he does not accept the truth of what I and many of my hon. Friends are saying, he will undermine the principle of co-operation.
7 pm
I share much of the scepticism about whether the measure will work. There has been no proper explanation of how days at sea will be allocated, and whether they will apply to pressure stocks only or also to non-pressure stocks. My hon. Friend is asking too much of the industry by demanding its wholehearted co-operation, until we have had such an explanation.
I want my hon. Friend the Minister of State to tell us from the Dispatch Box that he fully accepts the principle of the amendment and, if he cannot say so, the House should say it by voting.

Mr. Curry: I did not wish to speak when there was such a sense of anticipation in the Chamber. Rarely has the main picture been preceded by so many trailers, but I had better be careful about what I say.
Effectively. we have had a Second Reading debate, and I shall not rehearse the arguments aired on Second Reading and in Committee; this is not the place to do so.

Hon. Members were insistent about some matters and I shall try to reply briefly, so that hon. Members and my hon. Friends are satisfied.
People are concerned about how the scheme will work in practice. The right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) said that his fishermen do not want to work on Sunday. I hope that I gave him a satisfactory answer when he asked about that. Nothing in the Bill will force them to fish on Sunday. The idea is that fishermen will be able to choose which days they fish. There will be no Government prescription and no blocks of allocations for one coast, one port or one stock. All fishermen will have the choice of when they fish, within the framework that has been set. I have said so before, and I wish to make that clear to the right hon. Gentleman.
I have heard what my hon. Friends have had to say about their great concerns, and many fishermen have visited me in my office. Shortly before the debate started, some fishermen from the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) visited me to express their concerns about the proposed measure.
I recognise that some of my hon. Friends have special problems—when I think back to their remarks, I find it difficult to think of one of them who does not have a special problem. My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) mentioned Fleetwood. That port has problems, because it has many old vessels. Fishermen from Fleetwood fish in the Irish sea, which also has problems. We have a 74 per cent. stake in herring in the Irish sea, a 33·5 per cent. stake in cod, a 38 per cent. stake in whiting, a 48 per cent. stake in plaice and approximately a 58 per cent. stake in sole. Although those stocks are not phenomenal, they are none the less important, and I recognise my hon. Friend's problems.
I want to dispel the idea that there will be a gigantic tie-up and that fishermen face a 30 per cent. cut in days at sea this year, followed by another 30 per cent. and then another. It will not work like that.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Curry: No, I want to conclude this part of the debate.
I understand the problems that my hon. Friends have explained. I know that they appreciate that I have to negotiate with the Community. I have to come up with a target, and we have to deliver it, as has every other member country. I have listened to what has been said.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) argued with great force, and my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Sproat) put the east coast view with particular cogency. My hon. Friends the Members for Shorham (Mr. Stephen) and for South Hams represent the south-west. I recognise that that area has a mixed fishery, which does not have a preponderance of certain stocks, as is the case with the North sea and the west of Scotland.
From the outset, my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) has taken an honourable position over the Bill. I do not agree with him, but we have had a friendly and constructive disagreement on the issue, and I hope that we may at least build a few piers towards each other before the day is out.
My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) represents-another entirely different fishery, which shows the problems involved in trying to produce


regulations which will not merely achieve a level playing field throughout the Community but will be seen to be fair among the various British fishing communities, which are often in competition. We all face that problem.
I recognise that the concerns that have been expressed have a twin source: first, the effort control regime and its impact on the fishing industry; and, secondly the use of ministerial power, which is a constitutional concern.
The new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth seeks to tackle those concerns. I shall therefore make a proposal that I hope will satisfy my hon. Friends that I am trying to respond to those concerns. The Government have spelt out clearly their intentions in relation to 1993—a freeze, based on 1991 track records. No one can say that that was not fully debated on Second Reading and in Committee. I have amended the Bill as promised, to introduce statutory tribunals to deal with disputes.
I propose that Ministers should use the powers in the Bill, as envisaged, to freeze fishing effort in 1993. I also propose that Ministers should be obliged to seek an affirmative resolution in both Houses of Parliament before they use their powers to reduce effort below the level set for 1993. That meets the widespread concern expressed in the House.
We should not introduce such a resolution unless we are satisfied that member states which share our fishery stocks are taking effective steps to meet their multi-annual guidance programme targets. I therefore undertake that, subject to my hon. Friend's agreement to withdraw his new clause, the Government will table an amendment in another place to insert those provisions in the Bill. I hope that the House will feel that I have sought to heed its concerns in that regard.

Mr. Trotter: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister of State for making that statement and welcome it, although I and many other hon. Members will regret that it was not made earlier in the proceedings on the Bill. He has taken on board the fears expressed throughout the country about the future of the industry under the proposals before the House.
My hon. Friend must bear in mind that he and his colleagues will have to work with the industry, and it is essential that there should be a relationship which makes effective——

Mr. Robert Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that I have been following the proceedings with care. I am not sure whether the Minister has sat down and the hon. Member for Tynemouth is exercising his right of reply, or whether it is an intervention.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): I understood that the Minister had sat down.

Mr. Curry: indicated assent.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: He is nodding his head in agreement.

Mr. Trotter: The Minister will have to work with the industry and there must be seen to be a regime which is effective and fair. That is not the way in which the Bill, as originally presented to the House, was viewed.

Mr. Salmond: rose—

Mr. Trotter: I shall not give way.
There has now been a clear undertaking that it is the intention to freeze fishing effort for next year at the 1991 level. My hon. Friend said that that had been made clear from the beginning, but I do not believe that to be the case.
I welcome the fact that he now accepts the need, in principle, for the House to be consulted before he comes forward with any further developments.

Mr. Home Robertson: rose——

Mr. Trotter: No.
No further reductions should be made unless other countries take steps to ensure that there is fair play.
It is fortunate that we have the presidency of the Council of Ministers, because it will take some time before this Bill is enacted. It must go through the Upper House, where it will be amended on the basis of what my hon. Friend has agreed to tonight. I hope that this country will take the opportunity presented by our presidency to ensure that similar action is taken by other countries and we have an equivalent footing against which our industry and the Government's measures can be judged.
On the basis of the undertaking to amend the Bill during its passage through the Upper House, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Hon. Members: No.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 275. Noes 312.

Division No. 67]
[7.13 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene
Canavan, Dennis


Ainger, Nick
Cann, Jamie


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)


Allen, Graham
Chisholm, Malcolm


Alton, David
Clapham, Michael


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Armstrong, Hilary
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Clelland, David


Ashton, Joe
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Austin-Walker, John
Coffey, Ann


Barnes, Harry
Cohen, Harry


Barron, Kevin
Connarty, Michael


Battle, John
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Bayley, Hugh
Corbett, Robin


Beckett, Margaret
Corbyn, Jeremy


Beggs, Roy
Cousins, Jim


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Cox, Tom


Bell, Stuart
Cryer, Bob


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Cummings, John


Bennett, Andrew F.
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Benton, Joe
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Bermingham, Gerald
Cunningham, Dr John (C'p'l'nd)


Berry, Dr. Roger
Dafis, Cynog


Betts, Clive
Dalyell, Tam


Blair, Tony
Darling, Alistair


Blunkett, David
Davidson, Ian


Boateng, Paul
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Boyce, Jimmy
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Boyes, Roland
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)


Bradley, Keith
Denham, John


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Dewar, Donald


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Dixon, Don


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Dobson, Frank


Burden, Richard
Donohoe, Brian H.


Byers, Stephen
Dowd, Jim


Callaghan, Jim
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Campbell, Ronald (Blyth V)
Eagle, Ms Angela


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Eastham, Ken






Enright, Derek
McFall, John


Etherington, Bill
McKelvey, William


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Mackinlay, Andrew


Fatchett, Derek
McLeish, Henry


Faulds, Andrew
Maclennan, Robert


Flynn, Paul
McMaster, Gordon


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
McNamara, Kevin


Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)
McWilliam, John


Foster, Donald (Bath)
Madden, Max


Foulkes, George
Maginnis, Ken


Fraser, John
Mahon, Alice


Fyfe, Maria
Mallon, Seamus


Galbraith, Sam
Marek, Dr John


Galloway, George
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Gapes, Mike
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Garrett, John
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


George, Bruce
Martlew, Eric


Gerrard, Neil
Maxton, John


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Meacher, Michael


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Michael, Alun


Godsiff, Roger
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Gordon, Mildred
Milburn, Alan


Gould, Bryan
Miller, Andrew


Graham, Thomas
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Morgan, Rhodri


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Morley, Elliot


Grocott, Bruce
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)


Gunnell, John
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hain, Peter
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Hall, Mike
Mowlam, Marjorie


Hanson, David
Mudie, George


Hardy, Peter
Mullin, Chris


Harman, Ms Harriet
Murphy, Paul


Harvey, Nick
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Henderson, Doug
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Heppell, John
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
O'Hara, Edward


Hinchliffe, David
Olner, William


Hoey, Kate
O'Neill, Martin


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Home Robertson. John
Paisley, Rev Ian


Hood, Jimmy
Patchett, Terry


Hoon, Geoffrey
Pendry, Tom


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Pickthall, Colin


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Pike, Peter L.


Hoyle, Doug
Pope, Greg


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Hutton, John
Primarolo, Dawn


Ingram, Adam
Purchase, Ken


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Jamieson, David
Radice, Giles


Johnston, Sir Russell
Randall, Stuart


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Redmond, Martin


Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Reid, Dr John


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Roche, Ms Barbara


Jowell, Tessa
Rogers, Allan


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Rooker, Jeff


Keen, Alan
Rooney, Terry


Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C &amp;S)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Kennedy, Jane (L'p'l Br'g'n)
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Khabra, Piara S.
Rowlands, Ted


Kilfoyle, Peter
Ruddock, Joan


Kirkwood, Archy
Salmond, Alex


Lewis, Terry
Sedgemore, Brian


Livingstone, Ken
Sheerman, Barry


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Llwyd, Elfyn
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Loyden, Eddie
Short, Clare


Lynne, Ms Liz
Simpson, Alan


McAllion, John
Skinner, Dennis


McAvoy, Thomas
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


McCartney, Ian
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S &amp; F'sbury)


Macdonald, Calum
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)





Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Snape, Peter
Walley, Joan


Soley, Clive
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Spearing, Nigel
Wareing, Robert N


Spellar, John
Watson, Mike


Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)
Welsh, Andrew


Steinberg, Gerry
Wicks, Malcolm


Stevenson, George
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Stott, Roger
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Strang, Dr. Gavin
Wilson, Brian


Straw, Jack
Winnick, David


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Wise, Audrey


Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Str'gf'd)
Wray, Jimmy


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Wright, Tony


Tipping, Paddy
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Trimble, David



Turner, Dennis
Tellers for the Ayes:


Tyler, Paul
Mr. Jack Thompson and Mr. Eric Illsley.


Vaz, Keith



Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)





NOES


Adley, Robert
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Colvin, Michael


Aitken, Jonathan
Congdon, David


Alexander, Richard
Conway, Derek


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Amess, David
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Ancram, Michael
Cormack, Patrick


Arbuthnot, James
Couchman, James


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Cran, James


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Curry, David (Skipton &amp; Ripon)


Aspinwall, Jack
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Atkins, Robert
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Day, Stephen


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Devlin, Tim


Baldry, Tony
Dickens, Geoffrey


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Dicks, Terry


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Dorrell, Stephen


Bates, Michael
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Batiste, Spencer
Dover, Den


Bellingham, Henry
Duncan, Alan


Bendall, Vivian
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Beresford, Sir Paul
Dunn, Bob


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Durant, Sir Anthony


Body, Sir Richard
Dykes, Hugh


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Eggar, Tim


Booth, Hartley
Elletson, Harold


Boswell, Tim
Emery, Sir Peter


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Bowden, Andrew
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Bowis, John
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Evennett, David


Brandreth, Gyles
Faber, David


Brazier, Julian
Fabricant, Michael


Bright, Graham
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thorpes)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Fishburn, John Dudley


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Forman, Nigel


Budgen, Nicholas
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Burns, Simon
Forth, Eric


Burt, Alistair
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Butler, Peter
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Butterfill, John
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Freeman, Roger


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
French, Douglas


Carrington, Matthew
Fry, Peter


Carttiss, Michael
Gale, Roger


Cash, William
Gallie, Phil


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Gardiner, Sir George


Chaplin, Mrs Judith
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Chapman, Sydney
Gamier, Edward


Churchill, Mr
Gill, Christopher


Clappison, James
Gillan, Ms Cheryl


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles






Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Gorst, John
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Merchant, Piers


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Milligan, Stephen


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Mills, Iain


Grylls, Sir Michael
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Hague, William
Monro, Sir Hector


Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Moss, Malcolm


Hanley, Jeremy
Needham, Richard


Hannam, Sir John
Nelson, Anthony


Hargreaves, Andrew
Neubert, Sir Michael




Haselhurst, Alan
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hawkins, Nicholas
Nicholls, Patrick


Hawksley, Warren
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Heald, Oliver
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Norris, Steve


Hendry, Charles
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Oppenheim, Phillip


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Ottaway, Richard


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Page, Richard


Horam, John
Paice, James


Hordern, Sir Peter
Patnick, Irvine


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Patten, Rt Hon John


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Pickles, Eric


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hunter, Andrew
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Powell, William (Corby)


Jack, Michael
Rathbone, Tim


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Redwood, John


Jenkin, Bernard
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Jessel, Toby
Richards, Rod


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Riddick, Graham


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm


Jones, Robert B. (W H'f'rdshire)
Robathan, Andrew


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Key, Robert
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Kilfedder, Sir James
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Knapman, Roger
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Sackville, Tom


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Knox, David
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Legg, Barry
Shersby, Michael


Leigh, Edward
Sims, Roger


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lidington, David
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Soames, Nicholas


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lord, Michael
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Luff, Peter
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Spink, Dr Robert


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Spring, Richard


MacKay, Andrew
Sproat, Iain


Maclean, David
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Steen, Anthony


Madel, David
Stephen, Michael


Maitland, Lady Olga
Stern, Michael


Malone, Gerald
Stewart, Allan


Mans, Keith
Streeter, Gary


Marland, Paul
Sumberg, David


Marlow, Tony
Sweeney, Walter


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Sykes, John


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mates, Michael
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)





Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Temple-Morris, Peter
Waterson, Nigel


Thomason, Roy
Watts, John


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Wells, Bowen


Thornton, Sir Malcolm
Wheeler, Sir John


Thurnham, Peter


Whitney, Ray


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Whittingdale, John


Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)
Widdecombe, Ann


Tracey, Richard
Wiggin, Jerry


Tredinnick, David
Wilkinson, John


Trend, Michael
Willetts. David


Trotter, Neville
Wilshire, David


Twinn, Dr Ian
Wolfson, Mark


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Wood, Timothy


Viggers, Peter
Yeo, Tim


Waldegrave, Rt Hon William
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Walden, George



Walker, Bill (N Tayside)
Tellers for the Noes:


Waller, Gary
Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. Robert G. Hughes.


Ward, John

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 1

LICENSING OF FISHING BOATS

Mr. Channon: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 1, line 7, at end insert:
'(1A) (a) In paragraph (a) of subsection (1), after the word "boats", there shall be inserted the words "of more than 17 metres overall"; and
(b) in paragraph (b), after the word "boats", there shall be inserted the words "of more than 17 metres overall.".'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 8, in page 1, line 10, at beginning insert
'in respect of boats of over 17 metres overall,'.
Government amendment No. 10.

Mr. Channon: The amendment deals with the inshore fleet and, in particular, with a group of fishermen in Leigh-on-Sea in my constituency and in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor). This is the first occasion on which I have intervened in a fishing debate—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members leaving the Chamber, including those congregating at the back of the Chair, please do so quietly? That will enable the rest of us to hear the right hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon).

Mr. Channon: The fishermen in my constituency who are particularly concerned about the Bill and would be helped by the amendment catch Dover sole, mainly in the Thames estuary, and they are already under considerable threat. They work on small boats, which usually have skipper-owners, and they do not travel enormous distances. The amount of pressure stocks that they can fish is already controlled. They are limited to about 40 stone of sole per month.
The size of the boats is limited under the rules of the Kent and Essex sea fisheries committee. That is why I propose that boats of less than 17 in should be exempt from the requirements of the Bill, or at least from its days-at-sea provisions. The livelihoods of these small, traditional fishermen are under threat and their conditions will be made much worse by the Bill.
To make a living, those fishermen must catch other fish than sole, which is their main catch. In particular, they go fishing for white weed, to which I referred in an


intervention on an earlier amendment. White weed is a type of white coral, which is an extremely popular decoration, particularly in Holland. There is a considerable market for white weed, which they catch because their sole quotas are insufficient to enable them to make a living.
As the Bill and the proposed regulations stand, the number of days at sea which fishermen will he entitled to fish will be based on their fishing effort in 1991. But in 1991, all the fishing for white weed, eels and shellfish required no landing declaration. How, then, will they be able to prove that they were fishing on those days? Their allowable days will be based on an entirely false premise. I think that I heard my hon. Friend the Minister give an assurance on that point when we were debating new clause 1. Perhaps he will now spell out the precise situation, having had more time to consider the matter. Incidentally, I am grateful to him for the fact that there is to be a tribunal if no agreement can be reached with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
7.30 pm
The Government should exempt those small boats altogether or, as a minimum, excuse them from the days-at-sea restriction. One of my constituents fished for sole for 61 days and for white weed for about 120 days in 1991. In future, his days at sea will be based on the 61 days and he will get no credit for the days that he spent fishing for white weed. That is most unfair and the system should not be adopted. If it has to be adopted, as an absolute minimum it should be based on an average of five years rather than simply on 1991, and days at sea spent fishing for non-notifiable species should be included.
As experts on fishing will know, 1991 was a particularly bad year for fishermen in my part of the country. They were extremely short of cod, but they will be penalised for the fact that they did much less cod fishing than usual in 1991. In general, my fishermen fish for only part of the day and rarely go out to sea for 24 hours; in many other parts of the country. enormous fishing boats go out to sea around the clock. Small fishermen will be particularly hit by the measures.
I have seen what the Kent and Essex sea fisheries committee says about the Bill, and I expect that my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) has seen it, too. It says that the package of new measures which the Government are introducing appears to represent a significant threat to the inshore fishing industry in the committee's district, for reasons that I outlined. The committee says that if the Government's proposal to control effort and days at sea is accepted in its original form, it could effectively put out of business a large portion of the 10 m plus boats working from our district. It will certainly extremely curtail their current efforts and, in the long run, have an adverse effect on the value of those vessels.
The matter is serious, not to an enormous number of fishermen but to people from traditional families of fishermen who have been engaged in the fishing business for many years. Will my hon. Friend look at the matter again and see whether he can exempt the 10 m to 17 m boats? If he cannot go that far—I understand his difficulties, because those boats represent some 36 per cent. of the fishing fleet—I hope that he will meet some of my points.
All sorts of anomalies will arise under the Bill For example, boats that use nets will leave their nets out and

go to sea less frequently and more and more fish will die. Those fishermen will not be particularly inconvenienced, but the measure will be bad for conservation. The measure is bad for small fishermen in my constituency and the constituencies of some of my hon. Friends in Kent and Essex. I hope that the Government can do something to meet the genuine fears of fishermen who live in my constituency.

Sir Teddy Taylor: I hope that the Minister will be able to make a concession, because he can concede very little in the Bill.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) so ably said, our constituents in Southend are extremely worried about the Bill, because there seems to be little that we can do about it. We have just discussed the possibility of a level playing field. We said that if our boats have to restrict the number of days, why could not the same rules apply to French boats? The Minister explained that, sadly, absolutely nothing can be done about it because of European law. Although I appreciate that that is a problem for politicians, the fact that we can do nothing about anything is a problem for all concerned. We can do nothing about matters such as unemployment and interest rates and the difficulty for those engaged in the fishing business is even greater. They see the possibility of a whole new bureaucracy and restrictions, and no good coming out of them.
Will the Minister answer a simple question: what would he lose if he accepted the excellent amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West? It has been suggested that he make a concession on the number of boats. We are told that about a third of the boats are 17 m and below, but surely, as a part of the total fishing catch in any year, that is an insignificant number. We are not discussing the large boats that catch vast numbers of fish but a very small industry. If, by any chance, those small boats were to overfish, they would suffer the consequences.
The Minister should try to imagine the nonsensical bureaucracy through which the fishermen of Southend will have to go. It is obvious that we cannot base the number of their days at sea on the 1991 catch, because the fact that they engage in all kinds of fishing means that the information does not exist. They will probably have to start filling in forms, signing sworn statements, go to a tribunal and then appeal against the tribunal. If the tribunal appeal does not work, they may then be able to appeal to the Minister. The Minister may even find that some brave fishermen in Southend—there are plenty of those—will want to go to the High Court for a judicial review. What is the point of all that? How does anyone gain?
We know that there is a serious problem of overfishing by certain large boats, but the small fishermen gain nothing by going through that absurd nonsense. It will mean getting people to estimate valid days on the basis of what they think the situation is. While they are going before tribunals, filling in forms and discussing the matter with their colleagues, the French boats will be fishing in the same waters with no restrictions. How does that make sense? How is it fair? When people who do not study all the laws and procedures of Parliament see a measure passed which seems to be silly, costly and unfair, they will become extremely angry.
Will the Minister consider making a concession on this matter? What would be lost? The small 17 m boats could not rush round, kill vast numbers of fish and ruin the fishing industry. They simply do not have the capacity to do so; they make only a small contribution, to judge by their logbooks. It would be sensible to have an exemption for them. I have heard no argument against one. If, instead of allowing fishermen to go about their business, we make them fill in forms, go before tribunals and through all that costly, silly nonsense, that will he pointless.
Because of their enthusiasm for the EC, Labour Members will be well aware that we can do nothing about most of the measures in the Bill, because the EC has taken over and the power no longer rests here. However, the Minister could make a decision on this measure; the concession would do no damage, but would simply relieve fishermen in Southend and other places of much unnecessary hassle, stress and paperwork.
I hope, therefore, that, in that small area where the Minister still has some power and influence, he will use that influence in the best interests of the fishing industry and the fishermen so ably represented by my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West. I assure my right hon. Friend that, come what may, the fishermen of Southend appreciate what he has argued for and hope that the Minister will listen.

Mr. Moate: I believe that Government amendment No. 10 is grouped with amendment No. 7. May I respond to that, but begin by expressing my thanks to my hon. Friend the Minister? I may sometimes appear to be unreasonable in response to some of his points and I apologise for that. On this occasion, he has been most helpful and I am grateful to him for the steps that he has taken to help us with regard to the vessels measuring under 10 m. We discussed the matter at length in Committee and put forward clear arguments that, to apply days-at-sea regulations to small vessels, particularly those measuring under 10 m, would be extraordinarily difficult and unproductive. In effect, my hon. Friend had already conceded that by saying that it was not his desire to apply the regulations to the under 10 m vessels. None the less, the powers are there.
In response to our arguments in Committee the Minister helpfully said:
We are not about to extend the restrictions. I will have a full process of consultation with the industry and I will give the House an opportunity to comment on the course of action that we then propose to take."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 2 July 1992; c. 183.]
I hope that I am not quoting out of context. Clearly, if the Ministry feels that there is a need to extend the days-at-sea regulations to the under 10 m vessels, there will be another consultation process with the industry.
The Minister has gone further in Government amendment No. 10, for which I thank him. In effect, it says that there will be a further commencement order before any such rules are applied to the under 10m craft. He has been immensely helpful in saying that those resolutions will be subject to the affirmative procedure in both Houses of Parliament. That guarantees the industry further opportunities for consultation and Parliament further opportunities for debate.
I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for those assurances. I hope and believe that they will be welcome to

the industry and will reassure many smaller fishermen who are genuinely worried about their livelihood. They had some reason to be worried, and here I come briefly to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) about the 17 m boats.
I do not know whether we can be described as riparian Members of Parliament, having constituencies on an estuary, but on a fine day I can see my right hon. Friend's constituency and he can see mine. He has 17 m boats but most of mine are under 10 m. None the less, in a couple of weeks' time they will be competing in a trawler race. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad to hear that support from the Front Bench. But that poses the question whether a day at sea in a trawler race would count against the number of days at sea permitted under the regulations. One hopes not, and I am sure that my hon. Friend would say certainly not.

Mr. Curry: I think the answer is that it depends what they do with their nets. If they keep their nets on board, the answer is positively no—if they are not fishing.

Mr. Moate: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He did not make such a helpful statement in Committee. He did not say that time spent at sea not fishing would not count against the days at sea permitted. That would mean that collecting white weed would presumably not count as fishing.

Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend is seeking to lead me much further down the path. His question was whether if there was a trawler race it would count against days at sea. My response was that if it were a trawler race, it would not.

Mr. Moate: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I and some fishermen had understood that a vessel not tied up in port would be subject to inspection and perhaps challenged as being at sea. This is a particular problem with the 17 m vessels and vessels fishing in our estuarial areas. Very little of their time is spent fishing precious stocks. Much of their time is taken up with a range of other activities such as going for oysters, non-notifiable stocks or white weed, they may be on pleasure trips, carrying angler parties or engaging in trawler races. Because it is so difficult to find quota stocks in the estuary, much time is often spent looking for alternative sources of income. That is why I hope that we shall never have to apply these tough regulations to the 17 m vessels.
In Committee, my hon. Friend mentioned the Dutch days-at-sea regulations. I was informed that they applied only when their fishermen were fishing for quota stocks. When they were not, they were free to pursue other activities at sea. If my hon. Friend can confirm that our regulations will be applied with equal flexibility and common sense, many of the fears of the smaller fishermen will disappear, because they will know that they can carry out a range of other activities freely as long as they are not endangering quota stocks.
I support what my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West said about 17 m vessels. I repeat my thanks to my hon. Friend the Minister for his helpful and constructive response on smaller vessels. I hope that he can meet the point about 17 m vessels, exempt them altogether or at least demonstrate a great deal of flexibility and help in response to the valid points made by my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Curry: I hope that I shall be able to help my right hon. and hon. Friends, to some extent at least. My right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) has introduced me to a new flora, white weed, which I did not expect to encounter in this debate and I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. One discovers things all the time. The answer to his question is that we are not interested in how much time is spent chasing white weed. That does not fall within the restrictions.
We are interested in the time that is spent fishing for fish. Fishermen engaged in activities other than fishing—for example, trips round the bay in a clearly definable period, fishing for white weed or ferrying people to an oil rig, an example that I have given before—could have their licence suspended for that period so that they would not then find themselves caught by the regulations. It is not our intention to deprive a fisherman of his due fishing entitlement.
My right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) referred to the relative unimportance of vessels under 17 m in the fleet. However, they are a significant part of the fleet, comprising 61 per cent. of licensed vessels in England and Wales, catching 30 per cent. of the landings by licensed vessels. They are not a negligible part. If we were to exempt those vessels, an enormous part of the burden would fall upon the larger vessels, which the industry would see to be unfair.
However, I think that I can help my right hon. and hon. Friends. My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) said that I gave a clear undertaking in Committee that I would reflect upon the question of the 10 m and under 10 m vessels. He will recall that at that point I said that I would invite the House to take a further view on the extension of the system, but that I could not in Committee commit myself to an affirmative resolution of both Houses. This amendment provides for an affirmative resolution of both Houses. We shall invite the smaller boats to provide information which enables us to find out what they are doing. That is the important thing. We shall then go to a more detailed sample and collect information on what the smaller vessels are doing and the pressure that they represent on the stocks.
Everyone will accept that some vessels under 10 m are powerful machines. If we exempted vessels under 17 m, a new generation of boats at 16·99 m would be designed. We have experience of the so-called rule beaters, or metre beaters as my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham describes them. That would cause some difficulty. However, we shall investigate which vessels have an important effect upon stocks. If we were to bring them within the system, it would only be after the consent of both Houses of Parliament.
I emphasise that I cannot think of a circumstance in which we would try to bring in the whole of that class of vessels. We would seek to identify those that clearly had an appreciable impact upon the stocks. That said, the Sea Fish Industry Authority, which represents the industry, has pointed to the beginnings of pressure on shellfish stock, and there is some pressure from the industry for conservation measures. I do not want to rule that out, but it would be a separate measure not related to this. It would be in response to a particular demand from the industry as a result of pressures upon those stocks.

Mr. David Shaw: I have two interests in the matter, in that I represent a constituency which has a small number of inshore fishermen, and I am also concerned about small businesses. I trust that neither will be subjected to a lot of bureaucracy. Is it the intention that small boats and small fishing operations will be exempted from any regulations, and will there be an opportunity for extensive consultation before any regulations affecting smaller vessels are introduced?

Mr. Curry: We will of course consult widely before introducing any such regulations. We shall have to judge which vessels we eventually suggest to the House ought to be included, in the light of their impact on stocks. However, those that my hon. Friend described make only a small impact—and that would be true of such vessels no matter where they were. I do not imagine that cost-benefit analysis would indicate that it would make sense to bring them within the system. We are trying to include vessels that make an appreciable impact on stocks. I am confident that we shall be able to work out the track records, and I will write to my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West and to my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham about how we intend to do that, if that will be acceptable.

Mr. Channon: Our great worry is how one can prove that a vessel has been fishing when no landing declaration was required in 1991. I have many examples of daily returns to MAFF numbering fewer than one half the days fished because the balance was made up by effort on shellfish, eels and other species for which no landing declaration was required. How can that be overcome, to ensure a reasonable allocation in 1993?

Mr. Curry: The days-at-sea allocation will be made on the basis of 1991 track records, but they are not available for some vessels that landed TAC species only on some of their trips. All vessels over 17 m in length landing TAC species are required to submit logbook returns and landing declarations. Vessels over 10 m but not exceeding 17 m catching TAC species are not required to submit logbook returns for trips of less than 24 hours, but for such trips they are required to submit landing declarations or equivalent data. The declaration states the date of departure and of return, and therefore the days at sea can be calculated.
The appeals procedure will deal with those fishermen who feel that they are entitled to a larger allocation of days at sea, and it will make use of independent and specialist advice. I hope that we shall be able to settle disputes by discussion in the first instance. We intend to be sensible and flexible. Only if we are unable to reach agreement—and our fisheries inspectors are very experienced—will there be recourse to the statutory tribunal.

Mr. Brian Wilson: While there will be information on pressure stock catches and landings, and on the number of days at sea, it appears that there will be no equivalent information about catches of other species, where there is no requirement to register them. How will that information be taken into account in formulating the permitted catch for such vessels?

Mr. Curry: We should be able to make some of the allocation involving non-TAC species by reference to voluntary returns. We may also find it possible to determine the days-at-sea allocation using a formula based


on days per tonne of fish landed calculated from voluntary returns. We looked hard at that aspect and accept that it is not straightforward. We know that none of this is straightforward, but we believe that, with common sense, we can work it out.

Sir Teddy Taylor: When my hon. Friend the Minister says that the authorities will be "sensible and flexible", does he envisage that a fisheries inspector will negotiate vessel by vessel, or that there be an overall allocation? Will individual vessel owners have to make their case to the inspector—and if they are not happy, will reference be made to a tribunal, might an appeal be lodged, and so on? Or will the Minister make an overall decision in respect of vessels fishing out of, for example, Scotland?

Mr. Curry: I made it clear that we intend to make individual allocations. We will not apply a blunt, blanket formula. I gave that pledge at the earliest stages of the Bill, and I am pleased to repeat it. In the light of my remarks, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West will feel able to withdraw his amendment, and that the House will accept the measure that I have suggested—which fulfils the obligation into which I entered in Committee.

Mr. Morley: I welcome the Minister's remarks in respect of boats under 10 m, which are an improvement on those made in Committee, when the issue was discussed in terms of an affirmative order. His proposal introduces some accountability in terms of any change that might apply to boats under 10 m. Some of them, however, will be caught by the restriction. Although the Minister has tried to be reasonable and helpful, there will be some hard cases to deal with in terms of track records, fishing activities, and which vessels should be covered by the rule. There will be some difficult borderline cases. Also, all the bureaucracy involved in administering the regulations will be imposed on small business people who are already subject to a lot of stress—not least in making their living.
We welcome the improvement to the original Bill, but we remain concerned about the provision's effects on vessels of under 10 m, and on the many thousands of small business people around our coasts.

Mr. Channon: Although we are against people having to go to tribunals, thank goodness they exist. If there is a manifest case of injustice, it can be dealt with. Let us hope that is a step forward. My hon. Friend the Minister said that he would write to me, but perhaps I may press him further. If I, or those more expert than I, find that small fishermen are still worried about the situation, will my hon. Friend receive a deputation of Southend fishermen, accompanied by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) and myself, so that we may explain to him in detail the points of remaining concern?

Mr. Curry: If we can find a date, I will come to Southend.

Mr. Channon: I might even make my hon. Friend travel on the misery line. He can then kill two birds with one stone, and report on it to the Department of Transport. My hon. Friend the Minister has not fully met my points, but we have made some progress this evening. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Morley: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 11, at end insert
', provided that it shall be a condition of any licence granted under this section which contains a condition under paragraph (c) above pursuant to those regulations that any days on which such a restriction applies should be spent at a port nominated in advance by the owner or charterer of the vessel.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider the following amendments: No. 2, in page 1, line 11 at end insert
'provided that it shall be a condition of any licence granted under this section which contains a condition under paragraph (c) above that a proportion of days spent in port pursuant to these regulations may, at the direction of the Minister, be taken in any United Kingdom port.'.
No. 17, in page 1, line 11, at end insert
'provided that, in respect of any British-registered vessel regardless of nationality of ownership, any day which is not to be spent at sea as a result of a condition under this paragraph shall be spent in a British port.'.
No. 19, in page 1, line 11, at end insert
'provided that the period of restriction shall not exceed 4 days in any month, or 48 days in any period of twelve months.'. 
No. 20, in page 1, line 16, at end insert
'; but time spent in fishing for shellfish shall not count as time spent at sea'.
No. 21, in page 1, line 16, at end insert
'(6C) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (6B) above, any day or part of a day during which a fishing vessel sails to its home port or to a port in which it is to undergo repair shall not count towards the number of days spent at sea as long as no fishing is undertaken during the voyage.'.

Mr. Morley: The House now has an opportunity to deal positively with the problem of foreign vessels that register as British and are therefore legally entitled to fish on the United Kingdom quota. The Government tried to tackle that problem, which has existed for some years, by amending the Merchant Shipping Act 1988, to try to restrict the vessels that went on the United Kingdom register according to the nationality of their ownership. That was doomed to failure, because of the Government's commitment to a single market within the European Community. It was never likely to stand up in court.
Although quota hoppers were stopped from fishing—the fishing was suspended—the owners of the vessels concerned brought a case against the British Government in the European Court on the ground of discrimination on the basis of nationality. They argued that, if the Community was moving towards an open market, it was wrong for a member state to discriminate in licence conditions on the ground of nationality rather than the business that was being pursued. They won that case.
What worries me, apart from the current position, is the fact that such people are entitled to claim damages from the Government for the fishing time that they have lost. What is even more serious is the possibility that they will try to claim a track record as well. When we were discussing days-at-sea restrictions, the Minister said that he would have to try to calculate a national track record to be spread among the various vessels, on the basis of the targets laid down for us by the multi-annual guidance programme of the European Community.
The problem of having quota hoppers on our register is twofold. First, they will inflate the fleet, because every vessel that appears on the United Kingdom register is


counted as a British fishing vessel, thus adding to our problem of over-capacity. Secondly, any problem involving retrospective track records may have to be included in the target figures that the Minister will have to meet. I shall be interested to hear his comments on that.
8 pm
Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 16 provide the Minister with a helpful opportunity to try to deal with the problem of quota hoppers. They offer him three different ways of doing that. They present the principle of using licence conditions in a way that blatantly favours British vessels. I am not suggesting that any individual should be discriminated against on grounds of nationality; I am saying that, if people are registering their fishing boats as British, sailing under the red ensign and applying for British fishing licences, they must expect to obey the conditions of those licences, whatever they may be. If those conditions are laid down for all licence holders in the country, and if they are applied fairly and equally, it is clearly not a case of discrimination.
Some of the amendments suggest that, if days must be spent in port, they should be spent in a British port. It is stretching a point to allow vessels that are registered as British to be based in Spain, to operate in Spain, to land in Spain and to enter United Kingdom ports rarely if at all. There is no reason why such vessels should not adhere to the licence conditions that apply to our British ships.
There is also a practical implication—the question of enforcement. If vessels are operating from foreign ports, who is to make sure that the enforcement is carried out? Who will make sure that the vessels spend their days tied up in port as a condition of their British licences? How will the Ministry do that? We discussed the issue in Committee, but the Minister has not yet given us a satisfactory answer about how it could be done and what the cost would be. Will MAFF fishery inspectors be based in Spain, Holland and France to ensure that vessels abide by the regulations?
It should be said that, for various reasons, genuine British vessels operate from foreign ports. Equally, genuine British vessels may want to fulfil some of their days-at-sea restrictions in a foreign port: they may have entered into a contract for refitting, they may have been landing there or it may suit their operational arrangements. That is why one of the amendments gives the Minister the option of making it a licence condition for those who are to spend that time in port to nominate the port in advance to the Minister, so that he will know where they are. Even if it is a foreign port, it will be a nominated foreign port, which will make the measure much easier to enforce.

Mr. Curry: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that boat owners should notify Ministers of the port where they intend to spend the entire period for which they will be tied up, or does he mean that they may have to name the port in which they will spend each specific day?

Mr. Morley: In typically generous fashion, I am deliberately giving the Minister an opportunity to make such decisions for himself, thus allowing him the maximum flexibility. That not only helps the Minister, but deals with a serious problem. A number of vessels are still coming on to the register, and the Minister should spare a thought for what that will do to our capacity targets. The

implication is that, for every foreign vessel that comes on to our register and flies the British flag, there will be another over-capacity problem for the Minister to handle.
If the Minister is determined to apply the measures in the Bill, he may as well take the opportunity to use the amendments to try to end an anomaly in British law and solve the problem of quota hoppers. I accept that this is a tricky legal area; some of the amendments may need some technical knocking into shape, and I should welcome an assurance from the Minister that he is prepared to examine them further. I shall not be impressed, however, if the Minister says that his legal advisers have told him that the amendments will not work. I strongly suspect that they are the same people who advised on amendments to the Merchant Shipping Act 1988, which did not work at all, and I think that we should exercise some common sense.

Mr. Moate: The position is not merely anomalous, as suggested by the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley); I find quota hopping offensive and outrageous, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister—or other Ministers—will tell us at some stage of the Bill's progress what the Government will do, or try to do, to deal with it.
No doubt my hon. Friend will describe the immense legal difficulties involved and will enlarge on the legal dilemma—touched on by the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe—that now confronts us. Although the position may be legally complex, there must be a political solution. It is outrageous that the European Community should allocate national quotas to us and then allow those quotas to be undermined by another Community rule. "Outrageous" is a strong word, but I suspect that my sense of outrage is widely shared. Why should British quotas be taken up by Spanish vessels? If Spanish vessels register in British ports, we accept that they have found their way through a legal loophole; none the less, the position is unacceptable.
We make much of the fact that, for the next six months, Britain will have the European Commission presidency. I gather that we are renegotiating protocols to the Maastricht treaty, among other things. Why can we not renegotiate another protocol to deal with the quota anomaly? I am sure that the European lawyers could come up with some amendment to the Maastricht treaty to deal with the provision and to make it acceptable in European law. Presumably our European partners intended the quotas to work for British fishermen; let us translate that intention into practice. If the amendments are unacceptable, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will tell us what the Government plan. Are they going to try to do something, or do they intend to sit back and accept the present untenable position?
If we cannot control or prevent quota hopping, a number of alternatives are on offer, by which we could try to control quota hoppers who, presumably, will operate under the British days-at-sea regulations. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will tell us how he intends to ensure that the British days-at-sea regulations apply to Common Market vessels fishing in British waters. If he cannot do so, there will be an even greater sense of outrage among British fishermen when they are tied up and see Dutch, Belgian or French fishermen fishing in our waters. My hon. Friend knows that that is unacceptable. We have to find ways to overcome the problem.
The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe put forward some practical ideas. They may not be perfect, but they are certainly worthy of examination. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will respond today or, if necessary, at some other time and tell us how he intends to apply the days-at-sea regulations to foreign vessels and, more importantly, what the British Government's plan of campaign will be to eliminate the problem of quota hoppers, in conjunction with our European partners. My hon. Friend the Minister sighs. I know that it is a difficult problem to solve, but there has to be a political solution, in conjunction with our European partners. If partnership means anything, let us put it on the agenda and deal with the issue during our presidency of the European Commission.

Mr. Curry: What my hon. Friend thought was a sigh was the tail end of sinusitis.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I support the submissions by the hon. Members for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) and for Faversham (Mr. Moate). It is important for the House of Commons to understand the extent of the outrage felt by the industry, to which they so eloquently referred. The Government must be left in absolutely no doubt about the sense of unfairness that the Government have created among the fishing communities, because of the legal bind into which they have got themselves.
I am concerned about the effects of the whole measure on small communities and, in particular, on small-scale businesses in the smaller ports. I underscore the need for an answer to the question about how quota hopping will affect capacity targets. The vital question was raised, fairly, by the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe. However, the issue is much wider than that. If the quota-hopping trend continues in this worrying way in relation to Spanish vessels and, in particular, to Dutch beamers, we run the risk of driving a coach and horses through the whole concept of relative stability and the share of total allowable catches.
That, in its own way, will have an important potential impact on the review of the common fisheries policy. This is not a temporary problem. We shall have to deal with it over a long period. It may have a fundamental impact on the way in which the common fisheries policy operates in this country in the years to come.
It is right not to make light of the fact that these are legal questions. They were all caused by the European Court of Justice when it exposed our industry to the predations of other European Community fishing fleets. That, combined with the unilateral imposition of days tied up that this measure unilaterally brings about, creates very great difficulties for our fishing fleets.
It is not just a matter of finding a way through the legal problems. The Minister cannot just sit back and listen to his legal advisers and then sigh, or say that he has sinusitis. The House and the industry deserve at least an update on the Department's current thinking on this important subject.
Apart from the legal difficulties, there are enforcement difficulties. The amendments go to the heart of the questions that are in the minds of small fishing communities throughout the length and breadth of the

United Kingdom. They concern the way in which the Minister intends to police the provisions. Cast-iron, copper-bottomed guarantees have to be built into the enforcement procedures.

Like the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe, who so eloquently moved amendment No. 1, I do not know whether it is technically in order. However, the amendment, and those grouped with it, go to the heart of the question that ordinary people on quaysides throughout the United Kingdom are asking: how can the provisions be enforced unless there is a move in the direction outlined in these important amendments?
If a fair scheme of implementation is not written into the Bill, fishing communities will be justifiably outraged. The Bill discriminates against the way in which the industry operates in this country. The question of enforcement must be dealt with.
8.15 pm
There is a great deal of confusion about the tie-up regulations. This issue was raised in Committee. Unfortunately, I was not one of those who was chosen to serve on the Committee, but I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) represented my interests assiduously and played an important part in its work. There is great uncertainty about the regulations. They must be clarified, either here or later in the Bill's passage through Parliament, or by means of a statutory instrument or whatever other device the Minister decides to use.
The best way to deal with the issue is put forward in the amendments. That would entail the inclusion of restrictions in the licences. I can think of no better way of resolving the problem. The spirit and intention of the amendments are clear. They have a defined purpose. They are necessary. I have great pleasure in supporting them wholeheartedly.

Mr. Rupert Allason: The objective of amendment No. 19, which stands in my name, is to limit the Minister's power. I make no apology for that. As has already been pointed out, the powers being vested in the Minister under the terms of the original Bill—I appreciate that he has made certain commitments—are wholly unacceptable. Under its original terms, it would be possible for the Minister to ban fishing on every day of the year except Christmas day. Just to give the Minister such enormous power, even assuming that no sensible Minister would come anywhere close to using it, would undermine the livelihood of many thousands of fishermen throughout the country—in particular, the livelihood of the fishermen in my constituency. More than a dozen boats and their crews operate from the Torbay constituency, although the boats are moored mainly in Brixham.
The objective of the amendment is to limit the Minister's powers. My constituents and, I believe, everyone in the industry accept the need to conserve fish stocks. They represent their future, but the question is how fish stocks are to he conserved. Quotas do not work. If they did, the Bill would be unnecessary and we should not be debating it this evening. As my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) said, the concept of quotas is deeply flawed, especially as foreign vessels—the so-called quota hoppers—take advantage of our quotas. That leads


to consideration of the technical means to limit catches. Clearly, there would not be a need for an effort control exercise if the technical means worked.
What has gone wrong with quotas? I believe that we are the only country in the European Community to take any notice of them. I do not believe for one moment that the French exercise any control over their fishing fleets. It became perfectly clear a few weeks ago that there were no enforcement oflicers or inspectors in French ports to exercise control or to police French fleets. Quotas have come to an end, and that is the heart of the problem. There can be nothing more galling for a British fisherman than to accept the principle of conserving fish stocks and to tie up his vessel, only to watch a foreign boat come to exactly the area that he would like to fish, for that boat to fish to its heart's content and then to claim off the British quota.
That is the position of the British skipper. We should bear in mind the fact that skippers and their crews are not rich men. I have seen their landing documents, and I know the size of their catches. They are barely making a living and rely on the good will of their bank managers: it is as simple as that. One of the great problems with the Bill is that it undermines the relationship between the skippers and their bank managers.
Skippers have been able to get loans and operate on large overdrafts on the understanding that they carry on with their livelihood, catch fish and pay their debts. As soon as the bank managers read in the newspapers that their customers' livelihood is subject to the will and whim of a Minister, it dramatically undermines their confidence in the skippers' ability to pay the interest on their loans.
The amendment would limit the Minister's powers. As I understand it, the Minister has agreed that the limit that he proposes to put on the days at sea is to be directly linked to the days at sea of each individual vessel in 1991. I welcome that, and I also welcome the introduction of an independent appeals tribunal. Clearly, the moment the Minister says he is going to reduce his powers and accepts a finite limit, there is bound to be argument about what the 1991 level was for each vessel. I thank the Minister for the commitment to the 1991 limit and for the introduction of the independent appeals tribunal. However, some confusion remains, and I hope that the Minister will deal with one issue in particular.
Some of my hon. Friends believe that the Minister's commitment to a 1991 limit is directly linked to the French and to our European partners introducing similar limits. From his remarks, I understand that the 1991 level will be introduced immediately and that any future step to reduce the figures will first have to come before the House but, in any event, will not be brought before the House or the other place unless our European partners agree to similar limits.
There could be nothing more galling for British fishermen than to be the first victims of Maastricht. If we are honest, we must concede that Maastricht is the reason that the Bill has been introduced in this way. As the fishermen have said, the Bill was introduced before the end of the consultation period. Surely it is because the Maastricht Bill has effectively come to a dead end—and not a day too soon—that there was a gap in Government legislation.
It was a mismanagement of the House's affairs to produce a Bill with such wide powers, but to do so before the end of a consultation period seems to show a certain arrogance or incompetence, or both. I am profoundly

disappointed, because the Bill has created an enormous feeling of ill will among fishermen who accept that conservation is necessary.
Amendment No. 20 covers shellfish fishermen. I am attempting to exclude them from the legislation in every regard except that of decommissioning payments. I understand that there is a lot more to the issue than meets the eye. It is a European matter, and the Commissioner will have a say, so the Minister is not his own master. I should be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about shellfish fishermen.
The shell fishermen themselves recognise the need for good conservation measures. When I spoke to them, they mentioned two particular proposals. I hope that my hon. Friend will agree to listen to the proposals and will discuss them with the fishermen. First, the fishermen are willing to increase the size of the lobsters they catch, which will, of course, reduce the total catch but will mean that there will be more stock available and more breeding stock.
Secondly, at present the so-called cripples—the crabs which have lost one claw—are caught. I understand that the shellfish fishermen would be willing to throw back the cripples. Such crabs are not as valuable as others. They are being caught at present but could be thrown back and could become part of an important stock.
I am grateful for many of the Minister's remarks and for the concessions that he has made. There will be a broad welcome for the fact that he has recognised the fact that the blank cheque which he had proposed to write himself would be unacceptable to the House.
There must be a long-term measure to protect shellfish stocks around our coasts. There is no alternative to a licensing system, which I believe the shellfish fishermen would welcome. I am disappointed that such a system is not proposed in the Bill. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will give a firm undertaking to consider the needs of shellfish fishermen, the need to preserve stock and the need to introduce at some stage a sensible method of licensing.

Mr. Salmond: Let me take the opportunity afforded by amendment No. 21 to revisit a subject with which the Minister is familiar. May we have an exact definition of what constitutes a day at sea and, in particular, clarification of whether a day spent sailing to or from a home port or going into another port for repairs will constitute a day's fishing for the purposes of the Bill? I read what the Minister had to say about that in Committee, although I confess I was none the wiser:
The model is more of an a la carte, 135-day tie-up, than a dirigiste, inflexible eight-day tie-up."—[Official Report, Standing Committee; 23 June 1992, c. 44.]
I regard the Bill as more of a dog's breakfast than an a la carte meal, but we are certainly due some explanaiton of whether a vessel going to or from a home port, or to a port elsewhere for repairs, counts as a day's fishing.
The Bill says:
A licence containing a condition restricting the time which a vessel may spend at sea may make provision as to the circumstances in which time is, or is not, to count as time spent at sea.
The amendment specifies that time spent by a vessel sailing to or from a home port or going in for repairs would not constitute time spent at sea.
Those who follow the affairs of the fishing industry will recall that a similar argument occurred during the debate


on the eight-day continuous tie-up. I pointed out then that a vessel sailing the short distance from Whitehills to MacDuff, a major port, for repairs, would be counted as breaching the tie-up regulations. Would a vessel making the same journey be counted under the Bill as taking another day at sea, or does the Minister intend to discount time spent in that way?
In Committee, the Minister's response to those questions, which it is legitimate to ask of a Minister who is seeking such extensive powers, was that everything would be flexible. He said that everything would depend on individual circumstances and that he intended to consult the industry and see what came out of that consultation. We need to know more about what progress he has made since then, and whether he is clear in his own mind whether a vessel undergoing such trips will or will not be counted as taking a day at sea.
The Minister will recall that much concern was expressed about this question in respect of the continuous eight-day tie-up in Scotland. Implicit in what I am saying is the fear of discrimination between ports. Clearly, if fishing boats land in a port away from their home port, and if a trip to the home port for repairs is to be counted against fishing time, they will tend to stay at that port.
On 7 March last year, I presented a petition from the Fraserburgh harbour traders expressing precisely that concern. Yesterday I received a charming note from the Clerk of Public Petitions, telling me, pursuant to Standing Order No. 135, that, having had the petition for 16 months, the Scottish Office had no observations to make on its contents. Even by Scottish Office standards, 16 months is a long time to take to say nothing. I repeat that we are due some explanation from the Minister on this important matter.
The Minister cannot have drafted the Bill without having a clear view on whether time spent at sea that is not spent fishing will or will not be counted as a day spent at sea. In Committee, he argued that the present provisions were quite different from the prescriptive "dirigiste" continuous tie-up proposal. If he is to honour that, he must give us some idea of how the flexibility that he promised will be implemented. The fishing industry would greatly appreciate a straight answer to a straight question: is time spent going to and from a home port or for repairs in another port to be counted as a day at sea?

Mr. Harris: I shall direct my remarks to the amendments intended to ensure that some control is exercised over the so-called quota hoppers or flag-of-convenience vessels, to which I might apply even stronger terms. I have been trying to fight these wretched vessels for a dozen years or more, both in this place and, before that, in the European Parliament, because I believe that they have posed and continue to pose a tremendous threat to our own fishing industry, particularly in Cornwall.
One of the worst aspects of the Bill so far—again, I look to my hon. Friend the Minister to table amendments or give reassurance—is that it is clear that the tie-up measures cannot be applied to quota hoppers under the existing arrangements. Technically, the boats are British boats and appear on our register, although in reality they are nothing of the sort. Many of them are Spanish boats. If the Minister gets a holiday this summer, perhaps he should spend part of it in northern Spain—in Coruna, for

example. Much to my wife's annoyance, I went there one Sunday morning last summer while I was on holiday. Numerous boats had British registration numbers painted on them. There were boats from Penzance, Plymouth, the east coast of England and Scotland.

Mr. Moate: What a farce!

Mr. Harris: Yes, it is a farce. They are no more British boats than are Spanish or French boats that carry the registration of their true home port in Spain or France. In reality, because they operate mainly from Spanish ports, there is no way that we shall be able to exercise effective control over them under the tie-up arrangements.
In a letter to The Western Morning News last week, my hon. Friend the Minister said that the Bill applied to such vessels. Of course it applies, but, at present, its application is only theoretical because the Minister and his officials cannot enforce it. They do not know how many days a particular boat spends tied up in a Spanish port, and they have no power to go there and demand to know.
I hope that the Minister will go some way towards meeting our objections. I have had some discussions with him and I believe that he has some proposals that may help. I look forward to hearing what they are. If my hon. Friend feels that I have been hard on him today—and perhaps I have—let me pay tribute to him and to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. No two Ministers could have worked harder to try to rid us of the plague of quota hoppers. They have both worked extremely hard.
Late in the day, urged by the industry and several hon. Members, including me, the Government introduced the Merchant Shipping Act 1988. I know that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, monitor these matters carefully from your constituency. No doubt you will recall that section 2 of that Act set up a fishing register, giving us a chance to start again and get rid of those wretched boats, which should never have been on our original all-vessel register in the first place. We all knew what would happen then: part of that Act was challenged in our own courts and, perhaps more important, in the European court.
I read the vitriolic comments of a certain columnist in The Sunday Telegraph, who tried to imply that, in recent years, my hon. Friend the Minister and his Department have been lax in allowing the boats on to our register, and almost that they welcomed them on to our register. That is completely untrue. The ships were able to get back on to the register because of the diabolical decision of the European Court of Justice, and that is why the Bill has been introduced. I am convinced that the Government were hoping for a reduction in the size of our fleet by removing the quota hoppers from our register under the 1988 Act. That would have gone a long way towards meeting the target that the Commission will eventually set for a reduction in catch capacity.
We face difficult problems tonight because of the decision of the European Court and the return of some of those quota hoppers to our register. If the Government want to enforce tying up on our boats, it is incumbent on them to make serious and effective efforts to ensure that the Dutch and Spanish boats, which are technically ours, but which really have nothing to do with us, are subjected to the same tying-up regulations. I look forward to hearing from my hon. Friend how he intends to bring that about.

Mr. Ainger: I want to refer to amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 17, which do not address the issue of the controls that should be placed on quota hoppers. I will refer to amendment No. 20 later in relation to shellfish fishing.
As the hon. Member who represents Milford Haven, which has the largest number of quota hoppers in Britain, I am aware that the quota hoppers from Milford Haven, Penzance and Plymouth may well be able to form their own fish producers organisation. I am sure that hon. Members recognise that the people in the south-west and on the west coast of Wales face an extremely serious problem.
The hon. Member for St_ Ives (Mr. Harris) said that he saw fish being landed in north Spanish ports such as Coruna and Vigo. We could perhaps stick a label on that fish stating, "This is British fish, but untouched by British hands." Even when quota hoppers land fish in ports like Milford Haven, that fish is not touched by British workers. It provides no benefits to the local economy. The fish literally passes from a Spanish vessel—for that is what they are—into the back of a Spanish lorry. The fish is then driven on to a ferry and off to markets in Spain.
That is the main reason why we should insist on every possible legal restriction on quota hoppers. It is not just a matter of jobs being lost at sea and unfair competition. More importantly, what should he a British product loses its value because it is not being landed or processed in our ports.
Current legislation requires the quota hoppers to make only four visits in every six months which last a minimum of 12 hours. That is the only time that they have to be in a British port by law. Amendments Nos. 2 and 17 provide that, when days-at-sea restrictions are imposed on those so-called British vessels, they should be applied and monitored in a British port. That is the only possible way that those cowboys or pirates will abide by the law.
As the hon. Member for St. Ives said, the issue has caused an awful amount of friction in my part of the country and in his. Having tried the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 and been knocked back by the European Court, we can use the amendments to offer one of the few opportunities to impose restrictions and control on those pirates. However, the Minister refuses to take the opportunity. Perhaps he will respond differently, particularly after his apparent concession earlier.
8.45 pm
In many of the small ports, and in some that we certainly would not call ports, the shellfish fishermen who work crabs and lobsters off the west coast of Wales are absolutely staggered that the Government are proposing to impose days-at-sea limits on them. They cannot see the logic in that. The South Wales Shellfish Fishermen's Association, together with other shellfish fishermen's associations, has offered proposals to the Government to increase the minimum landing size of crabs and lobsters. They have pointed out to the Minister that the new EC regulations on measurements of lobsters will mean that smaller lobsters will be landed. Those organisations have told the Minister that he should get hold of Mr. Marin and sort the problem out. I am glad to learn from a parliamentary reply that the Minister appears to be doing just that.
The fishermen's associations claim, quite sensibly, that there are far easier ways to limit effort and thereby increase conservation. For example, the number of pots that a boat

is allowed to work could be limited. The size of pots could also be limited. In relation to shellfish fishermen, the gear option, not days at sea, is the right way to increase conservation.
As I said earlier, the number of days that shellfish fishermen can spend at sea may be limited if the Minister has his way. However, they will maximise the time that they spend at sea by working the pots for 24 hours a day in two runs, instead of for 12 hours a day in one run. However, in that respect, they will still comply with the days-at-sea regulation.
The shellfish fishermen's organisations constantly provide the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, local officers and local committees with suggestions for ways in which more conservation can be built into the way in which they operate. It would be a significant concession if the Minister were prepared to sit down with the relevant organisations that want to talk seriously about conservation of shellfish.
I remind the Minister that, in the latest EC document about the multi-annual guidance programmes for the period 1993–96 for fishing fleets, the suggested base for fishing methods should, for static gear fisheries including shellfish, mean no reduction of effort. However, the Minister insists on imposing reduction in effort and restrictions on days at sea on the shellfishery.
I urge the Minister to think again, particularly about quota hoppers. The Minister would receive unanimous support in the House if he were to impose restrictions on the quota hoppers. I am sure that the House would welcome any movement that would improve conservation in our shellfishery without imposing restrictions on days at sea.

Mr. John Townend: Although the Bridlington fishermen welcome some of the proposals in the Bill, particularly in respect of licensing for smaller boats and the one-net rule, they have great reservations about the effect that the days-at-sea proposal will have on their livelihoods.
While, by and large, they are not affected by quota hoppers, I support the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) about what I believe is an abuse of the common fisheries policy. That is not the Government's fault. They legislated, but unfortunately we were overruled in the European Court.
It is strange that we proposed legislation on restricting days at sea when we had a quota system. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) that quotas are not working. That is absolutely true. If quotas had been working, we would have been able to increase them rather than reduce them every year. If we had quotas, it would be nonsense to bring in regulations that prevented our fishermen from fishing their quota while fishermen from other EC countries were free to fish their quotas. I took up that matter with my hon. Friend the Minister and he assured me that that was not the intention, and that, if it became clear that our fishermen would not be able to catch enough fish to cover quotas, he would take action and extend their days at sea. I thought that that was a reasonable reply, and naturally I conveyed it to Bridlington fishermen. I regret to say that it did not pacify them. They said:
It is therefore our view that the answers being given by the Minister cannot be given and will never come to fruition. Firstly, the EEC has a condition for compliance with its multi


annual guidance programme is currently suggesting fleet reduction in capacity and net terms of 40 per cent. for our time of vessel"—
that is, commercial trawlers. They go on:
The Ministry in its wisdom, as an alternative to a decommissioning scheme has argued that the prime element of the policy be directed at effort limitation, namely, by means of day-at-sea restrictions. As the MAGP will be cast in stone"—
That is what my fishermen fear—
and will not relate directly to quota uptake, you will see that there will be very little room for quota manoeuvrability. While a counter assurance may be given to that effect which also from past experience with the north sea tie-up provisions for quota industries, I would suggest that the previous conditions were implicit on the quota regulations and as such could be relaxed.
If my fishermen have got it wrong, I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to repeat, so that it is on the record, that, if the regulations that are being brought in by the Bill prevent our fishermen from catching their quota, he will take action to see that that quota may be fished. If he can give that undertaking, it would certainly help to reduce my reservations about the Bill.
Our fishermen are very worried about weather and what effect it will have on days at sea. We suffer from much bad weather in the North sea around the coast of Bridlington and Scarborough. We are particularly vulnerable to winds from the east to the south-west, which make predictions of tie-up days almost impossible at times.
This year, many Bridlington vessels which are caught by the EC's tie-up restrictions have found that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has been singularly inflexible in relation to sudden changes in weather conditions, preferring to accept a morass of paper work from our fishermen for nine hours in advance of the tie-up date. The system is, in short, a bureaucratic nightmare and singularly inflexible to our fishermen, and does not take account of sudden changes in the weather.
Those are relevant points. Again, I ask my hon. Friend to give an assurance that will satisfy me and the Bridlington fishermen whom I represent that adequate note will be taken of the weather and that he will investigate the bureaucratic snarl-ups that have occurred in his Ministry in the past. Those points should be dealt with, because there is a great danger of misunderstanding. I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware of the fishermen's concern and of the financial pressures that they are under. I should like to add my thanks to those of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives for the concessions that the Minister has already made in respect of the Bill. I trust that the undertakings that I ask the Minister to give will produce a Bill that we will be able to support.

Mr. Curry: Again, we have had a wide-ranging debate, and I shall seek to answer the main points that have been made.
I understand concern about quota hoppers. I am sure that the House will equally understand that I cannot stand at the Dispatch Box and declare that there is some war plan specifically designed to sink quota hoppers, because I would be supplying ammunition to their lawyers in their next case against the United Kingdom. I put it bluntly to the House that that is the situation.
The House will know that measures were taken to tackle the problem of people seeking to register and fish

against the British quota. Hon. Members know that that led to a series of court proceedings. The Attorney-General, who was on the Treasury Bench a short while ago, will know how hard the United Kingdom fought those cases. The House will know also that matters following those cases have not finished and that there are still outstanding matters. Therefore, I entirely understand why hon. Members are concerned, and I wholly support their concern, but we are very attentive in our policies to try to make sure that boats fishing against the United Kingdom quotas have the links with the United Kingdom which we have been able to write into the regulations, such as visiting conditions.
I am sure that the House will equally understand that I cannot declare that I can take a course of action that I know would be illegal and which I am strongly advised would be illegal. I have to take advice from my lawyers, and I seek advice from very authoritative sources. I cannot say that the lawyers have got it wrong and that I am going ahead. I cannot knowingly invite the House to legislate something which I am told would be illegal. It might be easy for me to do that as a political cop-out, but I cannot responsibly invite the House to do it.
I have to make that clear. It is a frustrating position for all hon. Members, but I must have the principles of the maintenance of the rule of law foremost in my concern, whether it be fishery legislation or anything else. I understand the problems, and hon. Members also understand the problems.

Mr. Harris: We are not asking my hon. Friend to take discriminatory action against quota hoppers, because we realise the difficulties in doing that, although I should like to take discriminatory action against them. However if there is to be a tie-up which affects our boats, it should apply equally to quota hoppers. That is not discrimination; it is equality of treatment.

Mr. Curry: I shall refer to the measures outlined in the amendments, but I wish to deal with one or two matters, that, strictly speaking, are not covered by the amendments, but hon. Members are concerned about them so I shall try to respond.

My hon. Friend: the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) said that we were guilty of arrogance and incompetence. That would be a double whammy for anybody, I suppose. I think that, in three years in the job, I have not displayed arrogance; as to whether I have been guilty of incompetence, I have to submit to the judgment of my peers and contemporaries.

9 pm

Mr. Rupert Allason: Let me take this opportunity to withdraw those remarks, on condition that my hon. Friend explain the point that I was making when I made them. It appeared that the Bill had been introduced before the end of the consultation period. That move was certainly open to misinterpretation, and I should be delighted to hear the Minister's explanation.

Mr. Curry: During the Second Reading debate and in Committee, I explained that the Bill is enabling legislation which makes provision for the broad principles of a certain course of action. There will be very detailed consultation about how it should apply specifically. I have made it absolutely clear that we hope that the industry will come to us with its views on how we should apply particular


measures. We are still open to that course of action. Several hon. Members have asked me whether I will consult on this, that and the other. The answer is that, if the industry is in a consulting mood, I shall consult, but I cannot compel it to consult. It is known that my door is always open to people who want to see me, and that will remain the case. I have never taken up any contrary position.
My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay and the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) mentioned shellfish. Let me make the situation clear. We agree with the industry that the new minimum landing sizes for lobsters which have emerged from the interpretation of Community regulations are silly. The sizes are too small, and we have gone to Brussels to try to have the matter put right. I put that on record as a matter on which there is nothing between us.
On the question of action generally in relation to shellfish, the Sea Fish Industry Authority has produced a report indicating that there may be a case for limitation, some sort of discipline in respect of shellfish activity. We shall be discussing the implications of that report and what measures ought to be taken as a consequence of it. We accept that there is a problem in a particular fishery, and we shall seek to deal with it.
Let me now deal specifically with the amendments. With regard to amendment No. 1, the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) said that owners or charterers of fishing vessels should be required to advise fisheries departments in advance of which port they intended to tie up in. As the hon. Gentleman acknowledged, the amendment does not specify whether the notification should take place before each tie-up or whether it should be a blanket arrangement. He kindly left the choice to me.
Blanket notification would reduce flexibility enormously, whereas one of the purposes of the Bill is to provide maximum flexibility. If it is a question of notification in respect of individual voyages, the amendment is flawed. However, it is not necessary to amend the Bill to require advance notification of tie-up, as this can be achieved by licence conditions. While I cannot accept the amendment, I can say that I shall examine the practical and administrative implications of introducing advance notification of the port of tie-up for individual voyages, and I shall consult the industry about whether it favours a notification system of this sort.
The hon. Gentleman then introduced a series of provisions dealing specifically with the quota-hopper problem. I am sorry to have to tell him that, while we sympathise with the intention behind the amendment and while we would welcome the opportunity to secure improved enforcement, I have been advised that it would discriminate against British-registered fishing boats operating out of foreign ports, because the European Court has established that, although the quota system entitles us to have a condition, such as a visiting condition—and I assume that the amendment is based on the visiting condition—that establishes a real economic link between quota and the population dependent on fishing, such a condition must not amount to an obligation to operate habitually from a United Kingdom port or hinder normal fishing operations. The amendment would be contrary to those principles and would give rise to legal proceedings, possibly involving a claim for damages.

Mr. Kirkwood: Does that mean that the Government concede that there is no effective way of enforcing these provisions?

Mr. Curry: The Government are saying that measures incorporated in the Bill that could he interpreted as being targeted specifically against a certain category of vessel—the flag of convenience or flagship vessels—would he illegal and could be challenged. That is the problem. My lawyers advise me that, although the European Court has established that the quota system entitles us to have a condition, such as a visiting condition, that establishes a real economic link between the quota and the population dependent on fishing, such a condition must not amount to an obligation to operate habitually from a United Kingdom port or not to hinder normal fishing operation. Tying up in a United Kingdom port amounts to an obligation to operate habitually from a United Kingdom port.

Mr. Salmond: Will the Minister turn his mind to what positive steps he plans to take? The economic link appears on the face of it to offer scope for a positive measure to restrict the activity of quota hoppers. I cannot believe that since the judgment the Minister has been merely sitting wringing his hands and doing nothing. He must have considered measures that he could take, drawing on the economic link criteria. The House would like to know what they are.

Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman knows that we introduced the visiting conditions, which were designed to address the problem. It was clear that we had to be careful how we framed the conditions so that we did not have the same legal problems again. I am sorry to sound boringly repetitive, but I am conscious of the possibility of further actions. I do not want to concede any more ground. I do not want to be driven to take actions that open the way to challenge. I am deliberately careful in phrasing my replies, for that purpose.
The hon. Gentleman knows that I am investigating the use of electronic tracking equipment to improve enforcement of limits on the activities of vessels which tie up overseas. We are working hard on developing that technology for enforcement purposes. I have made it clear throughout the debate that I recognise the problem of quota hopping. I do not pretend that the problem does not exist. I am describing candidly to the House the constraints on me and how I address them.

Mr. Moate: My hon. Friend referred to electronic tracking devices and the like. Will he endorse his determination to ensure that the days-at-sea regulations will be applied in practice and in an enforceable way equally to quota hoppers as to British vessels?

Mr. Curry: Yes, I will. The hon. Gentleman knows the difficulties we face. I ask him to accept my assurance of our determination.
Amendment No. 19, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay, would place a limit on days at sea because that is how the legislation is framed. I appreciate that that was not his intention. I am aware that, in tabling his other amendment, No. 20, he had in mind the particular problems of the shellfish sector. The reassurances that I have given about the vessels of 10 m and under, which must be the predominant type of vessel in that fishery, will go some way to reassure my hon. Friend. If I


add that we are looking hard at concerns about the future of the shellfish sector as a whole, and considering measures such as he mentioned, I hope that he will feel that we have the fate of that sector in our focus.
The purpose of amendment No. 21, tabled by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) is to allow vessels to sail from the port where their catch is landed to their home port. I recognise the problem that the amendment seeks to address, because it has been brought to my attention in the context of the eight-day and 135-day rules. We cannot adopt the solution envisaged by the amendment, because it would not provide a clear guarantee that fishing was not undertaken during the voyage. A better solution is to ensure that the days-at-sea entitlement includes an allowance for such voyages. That is what we propose to do. The appeals system could be used by those who feel that the system is unfair to them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) asked me some specific questions. The multi-annual guidance programme targets are not yet agreed. The Commission has discussed the 30 per cent. cut, but it has not been agreed. I accept that fishermen do not like the Bill, but I hope that they will address what may happen, rather than some myth of what may happen. There has been some misinformation and exaggeration about the practical effects.
The one problem that we have never faced in our fisheries is not catching our quota. Indeed, as I have said many times, periodically we have to close fisheries down to eke the stocks out to the end of the year. I am sure that the problem to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington referred will not arise. If the problem occurred in exceptional circumstances—they would have to be extraordinary circumstances—I repeat that I would immediately seek ways of ensuring that the quota was taken. We are not in the business of stopping people from catching their legitimate quota.
We mentioned that there was a difficulty with the 1991 data.

Mr. John D. Taylor: I asked the Minister earlier whether there had been any consultation with the Dublin Government, because of the implications of southern Irish and British boats operating under different guidelines in the Irish sea. The Minister did not answer. He is ending his comments on amendment No. 21. What would be the implication if fishing boats in Kilkeel registered in the Republic of Ireland, 15 miles to the south, but used Kilkeel as their port for landings? If their home port were in the Republic of Ireland, would they be excluded from the implications of the Bill? That is the way that some people are beginning to talk.

Mr. Curry: If I have received the message right, I think that the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting a new form of quota hopping. I have often been asked whether we could encourage our people to quota-hop. I shall not comment on that as a recommended course of action, but I have consulted the Irish Minister about enforcement and management in the Irish sea, which is much more important as stocks are in such a parlous state there. When we increased the minimum landing size for whiting, a simultaneous announcement was made for the first time from Dublin and from London that we had taken an act

of conservation together to preserve joint stocks. I am willing to pursue that matter with the right hon. Gentleman outside this debate.
We shall make administration as flexible as we possibly can. If fishermen in Bridlington have had a problem because of the weather, they should use the consultation process to tell us.
I shall discuss the further amendments on the gear option when we come to that point, if my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay allows.
If tides cause a problem, it should be reflected in track records and thus fishermen would automatically receive time to allow for that under the system that we shall pursue.
I have tried to answer the debate fully, and I advise the House to vote against the amendments.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Morley: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 1, line 11 at end insert
'provided that if the master, owner or charterer of a fishing boat gives an undertaking to use only such fishing gear as may be specified, whether by reference to mesh size, mesh shape, or otherwise, paragraph (c) above shall not apply.'.
The amendment provides a choice of being tied up in port, or using conservation gear with a wider mesh size. That is an important option and fishermen are keen that it should be provided in the Bill. When the Government introduced the eight-day consecutive tie up, they conceded the option for fishermen to continue to fish by using a mesh size specified by the Minister. That facility is required in this Bill.
The gear option can work. There is no argument between us about the need for conservation. The gear option is more conservation orientated than simply tying boats up in port, which does not necessarily meet the conservation objective.
Also, if fishermen believe in, and can see the logic of, a measure they will do a great deal to support it, which has been borne out by the fact that fishermen pioneered square mesh panels and various forms of conservation gear. The 100 mm mesh size came into effect only on 1 June this year. The Minister has said that such options have not been effective, but many conservation options are very new and have hardly been given time to operate. We should give them more time so that we can evaluate their effectiveness, rather than deciding on the days-in-port option.
Fishermen advocated an 80 mm maximum mesh size in the Irish sea when the Government introduced a 75 mm size. Fishermen have also suggested a licence scheme for shell fishing and proposals for banning the French dredge, for conservation boxes and for a ban on industrial fishing in certain areas of our coast. The gear option should be included in the Bill.
Conservative Members who are concerned about the fishermen in their constituencies have been given a concession by the Minister, but it does not amount to much. I accept that limited accountability will be introduced which will allow us to consider the proposals that the Minister will bring forward. The Minister also said that the changes would not be brought in until 1994, but that was no concession, as that commitment was always part of the Bill. All the Minister has done is to put off until 1994 the time when the axe will fall. That still means that British fishing boats will be tied up in port while those of other member states will be allowed to fish.
The amendment is important because, although it will allow the Minister to argue, if necessary, for a days-at-sea restriction, it will also give fishermen the option of using conservation gear. Such an option would be more effective and meaningful than a days-in-port restriction.

Mr. Paul Tyler: I support the amendment. During the United Kingdom's presidency of the Community, one of our main objectives will be to try to achieve a level playing field—in this context a flat pond. We strongly believe that the inclusion of this option in the Bill will enable such a flat pond to be enforced more effectively.
We have a clear choice between the compulsory tie-up and the gear option. The tie-up is subject to the sort of objections that have been voiced from every part of the House and every part of the country. It presents major difficulties for all sorts of fishermen who undertake all types of fishing. That restriction is transitional and short-term and lacks the authority of a permanent, credible option. It also presents all sorts of difficulties in terms of its stated objective of conservation; it is a backward step, because it pressurises the industry into depleting the juvenile stock.
Gear restrictions have major advantages. We already have good precedents to demonstrate its effectiveness. Such a restriction represents conservation in practice and it demonstrably achieves what it sets out to do. That is recognised even by those in other industries who might otherwise question the objectives for the fishing industry. Its precise objectives are an advantage in an imprecise area of the law. It has great advantages in terms of stock generally and major ones in terms of the survival of juvenile, immature fish in particular.
The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) has already said that there is a precedent for the use of such restrictions, so we are not creating a pig in a poke, or whatever the fishing metaphor is. It offers great advantages for handliners, who are important in the south-west and for the shell fishermen.
The biggest advantage of that option is that it offers the very thing that the Minister wants to include in the Bill—maximum flexibility. That flexibility dictates that the gear option must be included in the Bill.
The NFFO is strongly in favour of the gear option and is prepared to do all that it can, within the industry, in support of it. It has set out in three concise phrases why it considers that the option should be included. First, it claims that it has considerable conservation advantages in terms of selectivity. Secondly, it provides an element of financial protection and could avoid the need to pay compensation to those who adopt that option. Thirdly, it is easier to administer than a days-at-sea restriction and it will minimise the enforcement and administrative costs. That final point must be of considerable importance to the Minister who will otherwise face a difficult time not just with the United Kingdom industry, but with that of the whole Community during our presidency.
The gear option offers the guarantee of effective Community conservation action. We strongly support it.

Mr. Curry: The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) was right to say that during our presidency, enforcement must come at the top of the agenda, so I could not accept a measure that would be unenforceable.

Whereas a gear option was possible with 350 or 450 boats coming under the previous types in the Community, a gear option involving 3,800 vessels over 10 m would be impossible to police. They fish for a wide variety of stocks using a wide variety of gear.
I do not minimise the need for technical conservation and I pay tribute to the way in which the industry has co-operated in developing such means, which is an essential part of any fisheries package. But in the context of the Bill, I must be able to demonstrate that what we do is enforceable and not open to evasion. With some regret, I must reject the amendment because it could not be made to stick, and the whole Community would see that. I advise the House to vote against it.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 266, Noes 313.

Division No. 68]
[9.20 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Cox, Tom


Adams, Mrs Irene
Cryer, Bob


Ainger, Nick
Cummings, John


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Allen, Graham
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Alton, David
Cunningham, Dr John (C'p'l'nd)


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Dafis, Cynog


Armstrong, Hilary
Dalyell, Tam


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Davidson, Ian


Ashton, Joe
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Austin-Walker, John
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Barnes, Harry
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)


Barron, Kevin
Denham, John


Battle, John
Dewar, Donald


Bayley, Hugh
Dixon, Don


Beckett, Margaret
Dobson, Frank


Beggs, Roy
Donohoe, Brian H.


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Dowd, Jim


Bell, Stuart
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Bennett, Andrew F.
Eagle, Ms Angela


Benton, Joe
Eastham, Ken


Bermingham, Gerald
Enright, Derek


Berry, Dr. Roger
Etherington, Bill


Betts, Clive
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Blair, Tony
Fatchett, Derek


Boateng, Paul
Faulds, Andrew


Boyce, Jimmy
Flynn, Paul


Boyes, Roland
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Bradley, Keith
Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Foster, Donald (Bath)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Fraser, John


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Fyfe, Maria


Burden, Richard
Galloway, George


Byers, Stephen
Garrett, John


Caborn, Richard
Gerrard, Neil


Callaghan, Jim
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Campbell, Ronald (Blyth V)
Godsiff, Roger


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Gordon, Mildred


Canavan, Dennis
Graham, Thomas


Cann, Jamie
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clapham, Michael
Grocott, Bruce


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Gunnell, John


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hain, Peter


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hall, Mike


Clelland, David
Hanson, David


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hardy, Peter


Coffey, Ann
Harman, Ms Harriet


Cohen, Harry
Harvey, Nick


Connarty, Michael
Henderson, Doug


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Heppell, John


Corbett, Robin
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hinchliffe, David


Cousins, Jim
Hoey, Kate






Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Home Robertson, John
Paisley, Rev Ian


Hood, Jimmy
Patchett, Terry


Hoon, Geoffrey
Pendry, Tom


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Pickthall, Colin


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Pike, Peter L.


Hoyle, Doug
Pope, Greg


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)




Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Hutton, John
Prescott, John


Illsley, Eric
Primarolo, Dawn


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Purchase, Ken


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Jamieson, David
Radice, Giles


Janner, Greville
Randall, Stuart


Johnston, Sir Russell
Raynsford, Nick


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Redmond, Martin


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Reid, Dr John


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Roche, Ms Barbara


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Rogers, Allan


Jowell, Tessa
Rooker, Jeff


Keen, Alan
Rooney, Terry


Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C &amp; S)
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Kennedy, Jane (L'p'l Br'g'n)
Rowlands, Ted


Khabra, Piara S.
Ruddock, Joan


Kilfoyle, Peter
Salmond, Alex


Kirkwood, Archy
Sedgemore, Brian


Leighton, Ron
Sheerman, Barry


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Lewis, Terry
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Livingstone, Ken
Short, Clare


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Simpson, Alan


Loyden, Eddie
Skinner, Dennis


Lynne, Ms Liz
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


McAllion, John
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S &amp; F'sbury)


McCartney, Ian
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Macdonald, Calum
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


McFall, John
Snape, Peter


McKelvey, William
Soley, Clive


Mackinlay, Andrew
Spearing, Nigel


Maclennan, Robert
Spellar, John


McMaster, Gordon
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


McNamara, Kevin
Steinberg, Gerry


McWilliam, John
Stevenson, George


Madden, Max
Stott, Roger


Maginnis, Ken
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Mahon, Alice
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Marek, Dr John
Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Str'gf'd)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Tipping, Paddy


Martlew, Eric
Trimble, David


Maxton, John
Turner, Dennis


Meacher, Michael
Tyler, Paul


Michael, Alun
Vaz, Keith


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Milburn, Alan
Walley, Joan


Miller, Andrew
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Watson, Mike


Morgan, Rhodri
Welsh, Andrew


Morley, Elliot
Wicks, Malcolm


Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Wilson, Brian


Mowlam, Marjorie
Winnick, David


Mudie, George
Wise, Audrey


Mullin, Chris
Worthington, Tony


Murphy, Paul
Wray, Jimmy


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Wright, Tony


O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


O'Brien, William (Normanton)



O'Hara, Edward
Tellers for the Ayes:


Olner, William
Mrs. Llin Golding and Mr. Thomas McAvoy.


O'Neill, Martin






NOES


Adley, Robert
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Dunn, Bob


Aitken, Jonathan
Durant, Sir Anthony


Alexander, Richard
Dykes, Hugh


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Eggar, Tim


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Elletson, Harold


Amess, David
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Ancram, Michael
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Atkins, Robert
Evennett, David


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Faber, David


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Fabricant, Michael


Baldry, Tony
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bates, Michael
Fishburn, John Dudley


Batiste, Spencer
Forman, Nigel


Bellingham, Henry
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bendall, Vivian


Forth, Eric


Beresford, Sir Paul
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Booth, Hartley
Freeman, Roger


Boswell, Tim
French, Douglas


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Fry, Peter


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Gale, Roger


Bowden, Andrew
Gallie, Phil


Bowis, John
Gardiner, Sir George


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Brandreth, Gyles
Garnier, Edward


Brazier, Julian
Gill, Christopher


Bright, Graham
Gillan, Ms Cheryl


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thorpes)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Gorst, John


Budgen, Nicholas
Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)


Burns, Simon
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Burt, Alistair
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Butcher, John
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Butler, Peter
Grylls, Sir Michael


Butterfill, John
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Hague, William


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie


Carrington, Matthew
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Carttiss, Michael
Hanley, Jeremy


Cash, William
Hannam, Sir John


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hargreaves, Andrew


Chaplin, Mrs Judith
Harris, David


Chapman, Sydney
Haselhurst, Alan


Churchill, Mr
Hawkins, Nicholas


Clappison, James
Hawksley, Warren


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hayes, Jerry


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Heald, Oliver


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Coe, Sebastian
Hendry, Charles


Colvin, Michael
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Congdon, David
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Conway, Derek
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Horam, John


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hordern, Sir Peter


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Cormack, Patrick
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Couchman, James
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Cran, James
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Curry, David (Skipton &amp; Ripon)
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Hunter, Andrew


Day, Stephen
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Jack, Michael


Devlin, Tim
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Jenkin, Bernard


Dicks, Terry
Jessel, Toby


Dorrell, Stephen
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dover, Den
Jones, Robert B. (W H'f'rdshire)


Duncan, Alan
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael






Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Robathan, Andrew


Key, Robert
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Kilfedder, Sir James
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Knapman, Roger
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard




Knox, David
Sackville, Tom


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Legg, Barry
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Leigh, Edward
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Shersby, Michael


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Sims, Roger


Lidington, David
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lightbown, David
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Soames, Nicholas


Lord, Michael
Spencer, Sir Derek


Luff, Peter
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Spink, Dr Robert


MacKay, Andrew
Spring, Richard


Maclean, David
Sproat, Iain


McLoughlin, Patrick
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Madel, David
Steen, Anthony


Maitland, Lady Olga
Stephen, Michael


Major, Rt Hon John
Stern, Michael


Malone, Gerald
Stewart, Allan


Mans, Keith
Streeter, Gary


Marland, Paul
Sumberg, David


Marlow, Tony
Sweeney, Walter


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Sykes, John


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mates, Michael
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Thomason, Roy


Merchant, Piers
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Milligan, Stephen
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Mills, Iain
Thurnham, Peter


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Monro, Sir Hector
Tracey, Richard


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Tredinnick, David


Moss, Malcolm
Trend, Michael


Needham, Richard
Trotter, Neville


Nelson, Anthony
Twinn, Dr Ian


Neubert, Sir Michael
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Viggers, Peter


Nicholls, Patrick
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Walden, George


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Norris, Steve
Waller, Gary


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Ward, John


Oppenheim, Phillip
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Ottaway, Richard
Waterson, Nigel


Page, Richard
Watts, John


Paice, James
Wells, Bowen


Patnick, Irvine
Wheeler, Sir John


Patten, Rt Hon John
Whitney, Ray


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Whittingdale, John


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Widdecombe, Ann


Pickles, Eric
Wiggin, Jerry


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Wilkinson, John


Porter, David (Waveney)
Wilshire, David


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Wolfson, Mark


Powell, William (Corby)
Wood, Timothy


Rathbone, Tim
Yeo, Tim


Redwood, John



Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Tellers for the Noes:


Richards, Rod
Mr. James Arbuthnot and Mr. Nicholas Baker.


Riddick, Graham



Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment made: No. 14, in page 1, line 19, at end insert—

'(4A) After subsection (7A) there shall be inserted—

"(7B) In any proceedings in Scotland commenced on or after the coming into force of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1992 for an offence under this section, any—

(a) entry in any logbook kept, under an enforceable Community obligation relating to fishing activities, by the master of a vessel;
(b) declaration made, under such an obligation—

(i) by the master of a vessel or by an agent, as to fish landed; or
(ii) by the master of a vessel, as to trans-shipment;

(c) information required to be provided under—

(i) any condition imposed under subsection (6) above, by the master, owner or charterer (if any) of a vessel, or by an agent;
(ii) subsection (7) above, by the master, owner, or charterer (if any) of a vessel,
shall be received in evidence without being produced or sworn to by any witness and shall be sufficient evidence of the matters stated therein.".'—[Mr. Curry]

Clause 2

LICENSING OF VESSELS RECEIVING TRANS-SHIPPED FISH

Amendment made: No. 15, in page 1, line 29, at end insert—

'(2A) After subsection (8) there shall be inserted—

"(8A) In any proceedings in Scotland commenced on or after the coming into force of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1992 for an offence under this section, any—

(a) declaration made, under an enforceable Community obligation relating to fishing activities, by the master of a vessel;
(b) information required to be provided under—

(i) any condition imposed under subsection (6) above;
(ii) subsection (7) above,
by the master, owner or charterer (if any) of a vessel, shall be received in evidence without being produced or sworn to by any witness and shall be sufficient evidence of the matters stated therein.".'—[Mr. Curry.]

Clause 4

COMMENCEMENT

Amendments made: No. 9, in page 2, line 13, leave out from beginning to the first 'the' and insert

'sections 1, 2 and 3 above shall not come into force until'.

No. 11, in page 2, line 14, leave out 'it' and insert 'this Act'.

No. 10, in page 2, line 14 at end insert—

'(2) Subsection (2) of section 1 above shall not apply in relation to vessels of an overall length of 10 metres or less until such day as may be appointed by order made by the Ministers (within the meaning given by section 22(2)(a) of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967).

(3) An order under subsection (2) above shall be made by statutory instrument; but no such order shall be made unless a draft of it has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament.'.

No. 12, in page 2, line 15, leave out 'comes into force' and insert 'is passed'.—[Mr. Curry.]

Clause 5

EXTENT

Amendment made: No. 13, in page 2, line 20, leave out from 'by' to end and insert 'this Act'.—[Mr. Curry.]

Order for Third Reading read.

Mr. Curry: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I commend the Bill to the House. It is, above all, a Bill about the conservation of fish for British fishermen. At the heart of it is our concern for the industry's long-term future. At the moment, no one can pretend that the industry can look to the future with confidence. The reason is the great crisis with fish stocks. Wherever we look, we find difficulties.
It is a worldwide problem. We see it off New England, where fish stocks have collapsed. We see it off Iceland, where it is recommended that cod quotas be cut by 40 per cent. The Canadians have suspended cod catches for two years. Although our stocks are not at the point of collapse, they are one iota away from it.
We have the option of doing nothing. That would be politically easy for a little while, but it would end up being an impossible option. We have chosen the option of admittedly difficult action now, for the industry's benefit and long-term future.
We have a comprehensive package of measures. They include licensing down to zero and decommissioning, which the industry wants, measures to enable quotas to be more freely traded, which the industry will find advantageous and which is wanted in some areas—particularly Scotland—and provision for capacity aggregation and effort limitation.

Mr. Salmond: rose—

Mr. Curry: I listened carefully throughout the debate, as I did in Committee, and now I will have my say, albeit briefly.
The Bill contains a series of measures which will benefit the industry and which it will eventually discover have served to save stocks and to ensure the industry's survival. I shall make it clear what will happen, because sometimes people tilt at windmills and are influenced by myths, not by reality. We must agree our multi-annual guidance programme. We cannot escape from that; nor can anyone else. We will reduce capacity by decommissioning, measures taken within producer organisations and capacity aggregation. Only then will we have to apply effort control. The more we pursue those other measures, the less dependent we will be on effort control—which will almost certainly be differentiated according to species and the state of the stocks.
We will apply the Bill with great flexibility. We will not prevent fishermen from catching their quota. I understand the concerns that have been expressed, but I must make it clear that we have never had to face the problem of not catching our quota. I am confident that we will never have to do so. If in the most exceptional circumstances we were to confront it, I would seek measures to guarantee that we would catch our quota.
I understand the fears about the activities of foreigners, but overwhelmingly the stocks that are important to us are subject to TACs and quotas, which means that quotas are

ring-fenced for British fishermen. We are not in the business of removing the legitimate entitlement of British fishermen; we are in the business of producing a measure that will give the industry a long-term future.
I have said repeatedly that if there are no fish, there is no future. More and more effort is pursuing fewer and fewer fish. Smaller and smaller fish are being landed. Everyone goes to the quayside and says, "Look how small the fish are." If we carry on like that, we shall end up with nothing worth catching.
That is not the obligation that I have as a Minister. That is not something that I would commend to the House. I commend to the House a series of measures that will benefit the industry in the long term. I have no doubt at all that, at the moment, the industry would like to chuck me off the pier. I hope that in a few years' time it will put a statue to me on it. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Morley: In a few years' time, the fishermen might attach a statue to the Minister and then chuck him off the pier, for giving them this legislation. If the Bill passes in its present form—even with the slight concessions made by the Minister to buy off those of his Back Benchers who are threatening to revolt because of pressure from their constituents—it will be a serious blow to fishermen. It is not just a question of no fish, no future. Of course that is important, but there will be no future for fishermen if the Bill becomes law.
The Government are introducing a unilateral measure. In an interview, Mr. Marin, the EC Fisheries Commissioner, was asked whether he thought it sensible to force fishermen to have their boats tied up alongside a port for a large part of a season. He replied:
I didn't take that decision. It was the member state itself. In my view, when it comes to choosing between economic anomalies and the destruction of part of the fleet, the choice must be demolition.
That is a reference to a decommissioning scheme. Mr. Marin concluded:
This at any rate is the case for Britain.
There is an alternative, although it does not include a proper decommissioning scheme. This week's issue of Fishing News contains a letter of support for the fishermen's rally that took place on 7 June. The Danish Sea Fishery Association wrote:
Denmark has had government and EC funded decommissioning schemes in operation since 1987, resulting in an overall reduction in Danish fishing capacity of 20 per cent.
Although we do not like decommissioning we see it as necessary because only properly funded decommissioning schemes can reduce fishing effort with some form of economic compensation to fishermen.
The Danish Seafishery Association, representing the Danish North Sea fishermen, therefore fully supports UK fishermen in their demonstrations against days at sea restrictions as a means of structural policy to reduce fishing capacity.
The message behind that letter is that alternatives exist to tying up in port.
What some hon. Members have said today has reflected the concerns of fishermen in their constituencies genuinely and honestly, but we have not secured the changes in the Bill for which we have argued in a reasonable and constructive manner. Our only option now is to oppose the Bill's Third Reading. If Conservative Members—indeed, all hon. Members—genuinely represent their constituents' interests, they must recognise that, in its present form, the


Bill does not deliver real conservation; that it discriminates against British fishermen, as opposed to their EC counterparts; and that it will ruin the British fishing industry and the many fishermen who will face bankruptcy rather than decommissioning.

Mr. Harris: I opposed the Bill on Second Reading, and between then and now I have done all that I can to persuade the Government to see sense. I must acknowledge that the Government listened, especially today, but how I wish that they had listened much earlier. Indeed, I wish that today's proceedings had been postponed until the autumn, thus allowing genuine consultation with the industry.
Having had several meetings today with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, I am convinced that he has made a genuine attempt to meet the deep-seated anxieties felt by many of my hon. Friends—and, more particularly, the deep-seated anger felt by our constituents. Nevertheless, I must tell my hon. Friend the Minister bluntly that I cannot vote for the Bill's Third Reading. As I said earlier in an intervention, it is unacceptable in its present form.
Because I recognise the genuine attempts that Ministers are making, however, I am prepared to give them at least the benefit of a half-doubt. I wait—and want—to see the details of the amendments that will be tabled in another place, and the commitments that will be given there. In the hope that those amendments will be constructive and will go much further than the proposals that we have discussed tonight, and in the hope—I have assurances on this—that Ministers are prepared to consult the industry before the Bill goes to another place, I shall abstain tonight. I warn the Government, however, that I retain deep-seated anxieties about the Bill, and I beg them to think again before its Committee stage in the House of Lords.

Mr. Salmond: 'The Minister can claim one achievement, which may be regarded as substantial: he has united the entire fishing industry. The fact that he has united it against him rather than for him is both his and the industry's misfortune.
The Bill is deeply misguided. Indeed, it was misguided to proceed with primary legislation during a consultation period: that sowed a seed of bitterness that it will take a long time to dispel. The Minister was wrong about the timing of the legislation. It was foolish to go ahead with legislation before he had received an assurance that the other member states of the European Community would introduce similar measures.
Earlier in our proceedings, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), said that the Bill is complex because all European Community legislation relating to fisheries is complex, but the irony is that this is not European Community legislation. The Government are charging ahead with a unilateral measure without thought, without consultation and without bearing in mind the arguments put forward by the fishing communities.
Most of all, the Government's attitude to the industry is wrong. They argue that the industry can have the sweetie of decommissioning only if it is prepared to accept the poisoned pill of this and other legislation. That attitude is

entirely wrong, if the Government are looking for a fundamental transformation of the way in which the industry regards itself and its relations with the Government.
For all these reasons, this is a bad Bill, and the House should vote against it. The rebels on the Conservative side have been bought quite cheaply. I have not heard an assurance that there will even be a debate on the affirmative resolution on the Floor of the House, as opposed to upstairs in Committee, but the Minister may tell us about that later. The Conservative rebels have been bought off very cheaply. The legislation is unacceptable. As the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) rightly said, the proper way to deal with unacceptable legislation is to vote against it and to square our actions with our conscience.

Mrs. Jacqui Lait: I suspect that I shall increase my unpopularity with the fishermen in Hastings and Rye. Unlike those hon. Members who have already spoken on Third Reading, I intend to continue to support the Government.
I have been on a very steep learning curve during the past few weeks. I appreciated being a member of the Committee, though I cannot say that I enjoyed the experience. However, during the past few weeks we managed to tease out of the Government, both collectively and separately, some useful concessions. Other hon. Members may not agree with me, but I am conscious of the fact that a number of the questions that the fishermen in Hastings and Rye asked have been answered. My fishermen may not be happy with the answers, but the fact is that their questions have been answered. We now know what is to happen in the case of the under 10 m fleet. We also know that the question of what is to happen in the case of the 10 to 17 m fleet is being taken on board. Many of the questions have been clarified.
However, two difficult problems that we cannot possibly solve tonight, or by means of the Bill, were considered during the past few weeks. They relate to a constitutional issue. The first problem concerns the unilateral nature of the Bill. The other member states of the European Community will be unaffected by it. I am somewhat reassured by the Minister's statement that he will try to ensure that the other European Community countries implement a similar policy.
The second and even broader problem concerns enforcement. The question of enforcement arises not only in the fishing industry but elsewhere. I was told last week by the chemical industry—that most European of industries—that it, too, has problems over enforcement. The Government and the nation ought to consider this issue vis-a-vis the European Community. Enforcement is the cause of the problems that we have with the other members of the European Community and with the Maastricht treaty. I should like effective and speedy efforts to be made to ensure enforcement in the fishing industry.
The common fisheries policy is the core of the problem. Until it is sorted out, we shall have to go on dealing with these difficult issues. The common fisheries policy has forced upon us an illogical and totally unfair system. I hope that, when the Minister attends the next meeting of the Fisheries Council, he will bear that point in mind.

Dr. Godman: We need to conserve fish stocks, but, in considering the Bill, we are confronted with a savage irony. Not so long ago, the British Isles were surrounded by some of the richest seas in the world by way of commercially viable fishing stocks. Now, an over-large and over-powerful European Community fishing fleet is depleting the scanty stocks of United Kingdom waters. The solution should be Europewide legislation covering the policing of fishing activities not only in United Kingdom waters but throughout the common European Community territorial waters. The Bill is not the fair and decent legislation which we require.
I stick by what I said: I genuinely believe that the majority of our fishermen would accept tough policing regulations on two conditions. First, there must be a sensible decommissioning scheme. Such a scheme should have been introduced five years ago, but the Government did not have the guts to introduce it because the present Minister had his knuckles rapped over the way in which certain Hull trawler owners took him and the scheme to the cleaners in an incident involving a dozen big stern freezer trawlers. The other condition under which I believe our fishermen would accept tough policing measures would be if such measures applied equally and uniformly throughout the European Community.
I am not a lawyer, but I genuinely believe that, if the Bill is passed, it will eventually be challenged by the European Court of Justice, because it discriminates against United Kingdom fishermen in favour of fishermen from other European Community fleets. It is not a bad Bill—it is a lousy one, raddled with inconsistencies, although I appreciate the Minister's intention.
As I said in Committee, we must conserve fish stocks. There is no doubt about that, but we must do so fairly by imposing Communitywide policing regulations. We shall not achieve that aim by discriminating against our fishermen. I shall vote against the Bill, but I am sorry that so many Conservative Members have gladly and eagerly found reasons, oddly and curiously, to vote for such a mess of a Bill.

Mr. Henry Bellingham: I shall not detain the House, because I detect a certain restlessness and anxiety to move on to the next business. However, I seek clarification from the Minister on one issue which has troubled me greatly.
The Minister will be aware from a recent Adjournment debate that I represent an inshore shellfishery where the main catches are shrimps, cockles, whelks, mussels and crustaceans in the same category. I should like a categorical assurance that the Bill will not impact too greatly on such fisheries. The idea behind the Bill is to ensure that the stocks which are currently at risk and about which we have heard so much are not wiped out.
The Minister wrote to me the other day and made it clear that the Bill would have only a minimal effect. It is an enabling measure and he will have the power to ensure that inshore fisheries are not affected too adversely. However. his letter was too vague for me to give my local fishermen an assurance that they will not be adversely affected and that their livelihood will not be stifled. I urge the Minister and the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon.

Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), who is to respond to the debate, to reassure me. I should be extremely grateful.
A fact that has arisen from our deliberations is the complete inadequacy of the common fisheries policy. We entered into it with all the best intentions and with a view to co-operation, to conserving stock and to progressing on a workman-like and constructive basis. All that has started to look very frayed around the edges, and I wonder whether, if we had never had a common fisheries policy but instead had stuck to the 200-mile limit, the fears that fishermen are now voicing would have had any foundation.
We could have had co-operation on the high seas in the areas between the different zones. But the fisheries in the Celtic sea, the south-western approaches and the area around Norfolk and the east coast would have been entirely the purlieu of British fishermen—in the case of the celtic sea, Irish and British fishermen—and a lot of the aggro and trouble that we now face might have been avoided. Surely the time has come to look again at the whole common fisheries policy.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: Our proceedings on the Bill have been marked by some changes, but it seems to me somewhat strange that Parliament should have had to fight to wring a concession from the Minister allowing us to debate the details of the restrictions that the enabling Bill will allow him to introduce. It seems strange that it took an amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, to persuade the Government to introduce a tribunal system to ensure a degree of justice for fishermen. It seems strange, too, that it took so long to persuade the Minister even to acknowledge that there might be some point in establishing a basis of equity as between this country's measures and those in the rest of Europe.
The fundamental point at this stage is that the principle on which the Bill rests—the restriction of days spent at sea—remains. That is the principle which led Conservative Members to rebel, or threaten to rebel, against the Bill. When push came to shove, however, those hon. Members said that they were not prepared to vote against the Bill. It seems to me that one either agrees or disagrees with what the Minister proposes: either one votes for it or one votes against it. I do not see the value of abstaining in this case. There is no third way before the House, and I deeply regret the fact that, even now that the Government have a greatly reduced majority and are vulnerable to pressure from their Back Benchers, those Back Benchers are not prepared to stand up and be counted.

Mr. David Porter: Like many hon. Members and many fishermen, I was hoping that this vessel, the Bill, would not be still afloat tonight. I have been a vociferous critic on behalf of my constituents, who still feel that it is an ill-fitted craft which will bring ill and which will have to be sunk in the Lords, as it is beyond a refit.
I am aware that many hon. Members wish to get on with the business that is to follow this debate. I understand that, but I hope that they will recognise the depth of feeling


in the fishing communities around the coast of Britain. If those fishermen's fears are realised and hundreds of fishing jobs are lost, it will be of small consequence to inland constituencies where, if people eat fish, they do not really care or know whether it was caught by a Dutch, French or Spanish boat. Why should they?
One of the lessons of the great mass lobby of Parliament last Tuesday was anticipated by me and others on Second Reading: the Government and their advisers want the Bill but the men who go out in the North sea day after day, who mortgage their homes and the lives of their families to earn a living, do not. Until tonight, it was clear that the Government were not listening to the fishermen except in relation to tribunals. That was a disappointment, because, when my hon. Friend the Minister visited Lowestoft, he won deserved respect for his straight-from-the-shoulder approach, which he put in jeopardy by persisting with the Bill in the face of informed opposition.
A second lesson of that huge protest last week and the consequential media coverage is that no one is against fish conservation. That has been said many times but needs repeating. My hon. Friends are not against it. Several of them have said to me, "If it is a Bill about conservation, it must be all right. Why on earth are you rocking the boat?" Fishermen are not against conservation, either. I have yet to meet a fisherman who does not recognise the reality of declining fish stocks. Merchants see the evidence of small catches every morning on the markets. No one is against fish conservation. To suggest otherwise is to distort the truth. However, it is not enough for my hon. Friends to say that the Bill is the only medicine that the fishermen must take, even if it kills them. It is not the only medicine.
We cannot now consider other technical measures such as more net selectivity, net shape, closing sea areas and banning industrial fishing. We cannot discuss a compensation scheme which goes to the heart of the problem in a European rather than a British final solution style. We can argue only that medicine that cures the illness, but kills the patient, is too draconian. It was the draconian nature of the Bill, designed without reference back to the House, which stuck in my throat and the throat of an industry struggling in the recession like most businesses, struggling against the elements, against fewer fish and against bureaucracy gone mad.
After all, fishermen are usually paid by a share system: no catch, no pay. That, plus the other points—

It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Sea Fish (Conservation) Bill, the Tribunals and Inquiries Bill [Lords], the Protection of Badgers Bill [Lords] and the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]

Sea Fish (Conservation) Bill

Question again proposed.

Mr. Porter: The other point that stuck in the fishermen's throats was that they would watch from ports, their boats tied up, while our competitors laughed all the way to Dogger bank and beyond.
My hon. Friends have listened to the deep-seated objections that I and others have, and I am pleased that I feel justified for sticking out against the Bill on Second

Reading. Inevitably, the fight must now move to the other place because the Bill will clearly receive the Third Reading tonight. In the other place, the strength of the undertakings given here by my hon. Friend the Minister will be tested. Should they prove inadequate, the Bill must return to this place for consideration of Lords amendments.
We have said often enough that the decommissioning part of the package is not enough as it has come three years too late. It does not cover the whole industry and it will not succeed in reducing the fleet. If the Bill achieves that through bankruptcy, we will see the truly unacceptable face of the common fisheries policy.
We have had no real debate about the CFP tonight. On Second Reading, I called the CFP a raft of measures, restrictions, curbs, quotas and red tape which fail each year. So what do we do? We come back and pile more such restrictions and curbs on the raft in a desperate attempt to make it work. The Bill is just the latest pile on the raft.
Eventually, the weight of restrictions will sink the raft. In the meantime, the recognisably British activity of sea fishing for a living may be all but wiped out. What a shame that we do not have the guts to scupper it now in lieu of the CFP mid-term review and start again, but this time from the starting point that we have—just: a viable British fishing industry. Let us work together to see how we can make it stay that way, given the realities of the fish stocks.
The Bill has united the industry against it. That is an unprecedented advantage and a baseline for future discussion. Although I do not like it, I recognise the reality of the situation that we, the industry, the country and my hon. Friend the Minister are in. We have wrung some concessions to make the Bill at least a little less unpalatable. That is a gain, given that this is not the end of the voyage. If the Bill had to be introduced at all, I wish that we could have done this much weeks ago.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: I shall be brief, but I must express the opposition of a united Grimsby fishing industry, while it is still England's premier fishing port, to the Bill. It is a bad Bill. The Minister's rant at the beginning of this Third Reading debate was typical of his approach to the Bill. It has been pushed through without consultation, without answering any of the questions and in a dictatorial fashion. It has been imposed on Back Benchers who should have stood up for the industry.
The Bill has all the hallmarks of bad government. The speed with which it has been enacted, the lack of consultation and the lack of co-operation that it is going to get from the fishermen of this country mean that the Bill is not a workable measure. It is a disastrous measure.
The Bill is bureaucratic, because the Government think that it is simple to count vessels in ports, especially when they are not at sea. The Bill will be enormously complicated to administer and it will not even do anything about the main problem with which it is supposed to deal—conservation. It imposes a direct incentive on the industry to go to sea in the time allowed to catch as much fish, of whatever kind and size, to make up for the tie-up period. The Bill does not even impose proper conservation on the European fishing industry with which we are competing—it will still be allowed to fish untrammelled. As my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) said, it will have no effect on the quota hoppers.
British fishermen are justified in feeling that they are being discriminated against. Quota hoppers registered in this country are now allowed to spend their days, when they should be tied up, in foreign ports where they will be unsupervised. How do we know that there will not be fishing? There will be fishing. That is discrimination against the British fishing industry.
The Minister has bought off Back Benchers who should have known better and who should have represented their fishing industry, with all its complaints and agonies and the loss of work and earnings that has been imposed on it and the blow that has been dealt to the most vulnerable people in the country. Conservative Members have just allowed a measure to go through with a concession that is no concession at all. If they let the Bill go through now, what possible chance have they of holding up its implementation later? The pass is now sold, and they have sold it for nothing—for no gains and no concessions from the Government. There is no chance now of stopping the measure. Conservative Members have even thrown away the chance to impose the better option, which is a gear option—bigger mesh sizes and better gear to give us proper conservation and deal with the problem. This is an appalling exercise in misjudgment, bad government and dictatorial behaviour.
A great responsibility is now imposed on the Minister, and I hope that, for once, he will listen to something that is being said to him. He has his measure. He has been able to impose it on Back Benchers who have been weak-willed and who have no guts to represent their fishermen. He has imposed the measure without consultation with the industry. That imposes an enormous responsibility on the Minister. He has been shown, by the ease with which he has got his measure through, that he can get away with anything. It is up to him now to deal justly and fairly with an industry that, until now, has been trampled on and to deal with it honourably, because he is an honourable man. It is up to him not to brutalise the industry in the way that the measure allows him to do but to cherish it, support it, help it and give it compensation and what it has not had in the Bill—a fair deal.

Mr. Trotter: All too often, the Government's approach to the problems of the industry seem to be piecemeal. I still await the day when we shall see a plan that seeks to fit together the various courses of action that can be helpful in an inevitably difficult scenario. We seem to be seeking a unilateral solution to an international problem. One of the anxieties that the industry shares with me is that, through the Bill, we are seeking a system that is easily enforced—perhaps hard to administer bureaucratically, as some of my hon. Friends have pointed out, but easy in principle to enforce—while our competitors will be free to continue to adopt measures that do not lend themselves to enforcement. That is clearly unfair.
The Government have listened to what my hon. Friends and I have said—even if they have listened very late in the day—and they have made major concessions. My hon. Friend the Minister has made pledges that are of great value. I should like to consider what will happen in the next few months. We shall see further proceedings in another place. I am sure that the pledges that have been

given today will be translated into Government amendments in the Upper House. I also expect very determined action by the Government on the international scene while we chair the European Commission. I very much hope that when we next debate this subject we will see perhaps not a level playing field but a smooth sea, so that the same conditions affect our industry as are seen to affect our competitors.
With the concessions made today, the Government have justified our support, but they are on trial, especially when they are in a position in Brussels to act to correct something that has been wrong for far too long.

Mr. John D. Taylor: I must begin by congratulating the Minister on the way in which he has managed to destroy opposition on Government Benches. On 7 July, hon. Members attended Westminster central hall to listen to 3,500 fishermen from all parts of the United Kingdom. From the beginning to the end of the meeting, I sat at the back of the hall, and I was very impressed with speeches by Conservative Members who represented fishing constituencies and who promised fishermen that they would fight the Bill. They sat on the platform to be photographed, to be televised and to receive publicity.
The Minister destroyed that opposition tonight by the way in which he delivered his speech. He has certainly melted all opposition. The Conservative Members who, only a week ago, promised that they would support the fishermen of this kingdom, have tonight let them down.
The Bill is not welcomed by the fishing industry. There are many reasons for the opposition to it. It is criminal to recommend the imposition of a fine of £50,000 when a small boat just over 10m in length happens to breach the regulations. But the main reason for our opposition to the Bill is that it discriminates against British fishermen. The European Community has a common fisheries policy, but if the policy is indeed to be common it should be applied to all fishing boats, not just those from the United Kingdom. While we introduce legislation that disadvantages our fishing industry but enables other boats to come into our waters and take our fish, we shall damage our own industry.
The Minister made a brilliant Third Reading speech. It was what one expected from him. It was fluent and well-informed, and once again the hon. Gentleman demonstrated that he was on top of the subject. But anyone reading the speech in Hansard will see that he said at least four times that the fishing industry wants the Bill. I can tell him that the fishing industry of the United Kingdom does not want it. The industry sees it simply as a Government mechanism to introduce a decommissioning scheme on the cheap. If farmers can be properly compensated when they have to cut their production, we ought to have a proper decommissioning scheme to support our fishing industry, as other parts of the European Community have.
We in the parliamentary Ulster Unionist party will unite as a team and vote against the Bill.

Mr. Steen: The problem at Third Reading has been caused largely by a lack of clarity as to what my hon. Friend the Minister actually said. I wonder whether, before we complete the Third Reading, my hon. Friend


will spell out, in words that everybody, even my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Sproat), can understand, exactly what the concessions are. My understanding is that the legislation will be brought back to the House only when the Government are satisfied that the other European Governments are putting in place legislation that will have the same effect in this country as in their own. There is some confusion on both sides of the House as to whether it is only then that the Bill will be brought back for affirmative action. Before we vote on Third Reading, my hon. Friend the Minister should spell out, for the benefit of hon. Members on both sides of the House, exactly what the concessions are. The whole House ought to know on what it is voting.
That is the only contribution that I want to make to the Third Reading debate.

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order.

Mr. Calum Macdonald: The Minister wants to maintain the confusion. In Committee, he undertook to consider the possibility of Government and EC assistance for exploratory voyages in the fishing grounds west of the Hebrides in connection with French and other boats. Has he been able to come to any conclusions? If he cannot give me a reply tonight, perhaps he would write to me.

Mr. Wilson: There has not been much humour during the passage of the Bill. In particular, there has not been much humour for fishermen. On the memorable day last week on which the fishermen came to London, the opinions of the British fishing industry were summed up by a banner outside the House of Commons, which said, "Skinner in, squirt out". I believe that that is an old piece of fishing terminology.
This is a bad, bureaucratic Bill based on a deeply flawed approach to conservation. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) that the Bill will go to the European Court and will be challenged legally. When it is challenged, that will surely be the first recorded case of a national Government being taken to court for discriminating against not the peoples of other countries but their own people.
Throughout the passage of the Bill, I have been appalled by the carelessness with which Conservative Members deal with other people's livelihoods. In what other industry would Members of Parliament vote for legislation which deliberately and systematically reduces to a pitiful level the number of days in the year on which people are allowed to go out and earn their livelihood? If Conservative Members were treated in that way in their part-time employment, never mind their full-time employment, and if their ability to earn was interfered with, they would rightly be aggrieved.
Once again, the Tories are setting up an enormous bureaucracy. They have set up a bureaucracy of tribunals and appeals. Every little boat in the country will have a number of days fishing set aside. If a Government of any other hue set up such a huge bureaucracy, Conservative Members would complain and talk about Stalinism,

centralism and the rest. But willy-nilly in legislation such as this, they set up huge bureaucracies under which other people have to live.
Nothing in the Bill guarantees even the conservation ends to which the Bill pays lip service. In fishing ports throughout the country, fishing vessels and fishermen who do no harm to the cause of conservation will have the regulations and legislation imposed on them. Many of them will go out of business and many will be forced to yield up quotas. The people who are most protected from the legislation are those who do most damage to conservation. The fishermen who will be wiped out do no damage to the conservation of stocks. It is cruelty and it is against natural justice that the fishermen of the small, poor, less capital-intensive ports of the United Kingdom will have their traditional industry destroyed by the legislation.
In the interests of time, I shall be brief, but I shall not lightly forget and the constituents of Tory Members will not forget, Conservative Members who went to the rally across the road a week ago and trembled at the sight of 3,000 fishermen but came back and trembled even more when they went to see their Whips. In future, let us not give those Members the dignity of the name "Tory rebels". Let us call them what they are—Tory kippers, two faces and no guts.
The message to Conservative Members from the electorates of fishing constituencies will be that they can run but they cannot hide. No one will be interested in who abstained. Those constituents will look at who voted for the Bill and will consider that anyone who did so voted against them. The Members from fishing constituencies will either be true to what they said last week when the fishermen were here or they will spinelessly fail to vote against the legislation when the fishermen are not here.

Sir Hector Monro: In Committee and today on Report and Third Reading, we have had a good-natured debate on an important subject, but we have understood the anger of the fishermen and their organisations and of some Members of Parliament. The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) spoke of a slight concession. We made an important change to the Bill tonight as a result of consultations. We shall continue those consultations until the Bill returns from another place. That is some months away. Those consultations will be valuable and we shall use what news we have from the fishing industry to good effect. The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe underestimated the importance of the appeal tribunals, which we were glad to include in the Bill.
Conservative Members were disappointed that throughout the debate we heard so little about the Opposition's policies. They have never said how much they would put into decommissioning. As a result of the Bill, we shall put in £25 million, and that is part of our conservation package. We have no idea whether the Opposition would have matched that or would have put a higher figure on it. We do not know their views on mesh sizes, technical gear or effort elimination.
There was much talk of conservation from the Opposition Benches. They criticised every Government proposal but kept their own powder dry. We believe


strongly in conservation, and the Bill is an important step forward. In a few years, our scientific advice will prove to be right, when fish stocks begin to increase.
My hon. Friend the minister of State and I want a profitable fishing industry, unfettered by controls. We want the burden of conservation to be shared equally throughout the Community. We shall achieve that, but it will take time, combined with effort by everyone, to reach the levels of conservation that we feel are essential.
The Bill is a usefull and valuable start and I commend it to the House.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 311, Noes 282.

Division No. 69]
[10.20 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Colvin, Michael


Aitken, Jonathan
Congdon, David


Alexander, Richard
Conway, Derek


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Amess, David
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Ancram, Michael
Cormack, Patrick


Arbuthnot, James
Couchman, James


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Cran, James


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Aspinwall, Jack
Curry, David (Skipton &amp; Ripon)


Atkins, Robert
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Day, Stephen


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Baldry, Tony
Devlin, Tim


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Dickens, Geoffrey


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Dicks, Terry


Bates, Michael
Dorrell, Stephen


Batiste, Spencer
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bellingham, Henry
Dover, Den


Bendall, Vivian
Duncan, Alan


Beresford, Sir Paul
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Dunn, Bob


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Durant, Sir Anthony


Booth, Hartley
Dykes, Hugh


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Eggar, Tim


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Elletson, Harold


Bowden, Andrew
Emery, Sir Peter


Bowis, John
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Brandreth, Gyles
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Brazier, Julian
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Bright, Graham
Evennett, David


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Faber, David


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thorpes)
Fabricant, Michael


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Budgen, Nicholas
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Burns, Simon
Fishburn, John Dudley


Burt, Alistair
Forman, Nigel


Butcher, John
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Butler, Peter
Forth, Eric


Butterfill, John
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Carrington, Matthew
Freeman, Roger


Carttiss, Michael
French, Douglas


Cash, William
Fry, Peter


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Gale, Roger


Chaplin, Mrs Judith
Gallie, Phil


Chapman, Sydney
Gardiner, Sir George


Churchill, Mr
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Clappison, James
Gamier, Edward


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Gill, Christopher


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Gillan, Ms Cheryl





Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gorst, John
Mates, Michael




Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Merchant, Piers


Grylls, Sir Michael
Milligan, Stephen


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Mills, Iain


Hague, William
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Monro, Sir Hector




Hanley, Jeremy
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hannam, Sir John
Moss, Malcolm


Hargreaves, Andrew
Needham, Richard


Haselhurst, Alan
Nelson, Anthony


Hawkins, Nicholas
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hawksley, Warren
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hayes, Jerry
Nicholls, Patrick


Heald, Oliver
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hendry, Charles
Norris, Steve


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Ottaway, Richard


Horam, John
Page, Richard


Hordern, Sir Peter
Paice, James


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Patnick, Irvine


Howarth, Alan (Strafrd-on-A)
Patten, Rt Hon John


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Pickles, Eric


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hunter, Andrew
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Jack, Michael
Powell, William (Corby)


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Redwood, John


Jenkin, Bernard
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Jessel, Toby
Richards, Rod


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Riddick, Graham


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm


Jones, Robert B. (W H'f'rdshire)
Robathan, Andrew


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Key, Robert
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Kilfedder, Sir James
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Knapman, Roger
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Sackville, Tom


Knox, David
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Legg, Barry
Shersby, Michael


Leigh, Edward
Sims, Roger


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lidington, David
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lightbown, David
Soames, Nicholas


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Lord, Michael
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Luff, Peter
Spink, Dr Robert


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Spring, Richard


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Sproat, Iain


MacKay, Andrew
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Maclean, David
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


McLoughlin, Patrick
Steen, Anthony


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Stephen, Michael


Madel, David
Stern, Michael


Maitland, Lady Olga
Stewart, Allan


Major, Rt Hon John
Streeter, Gary


Malone, Gerald
Sumberg, David


Mans, Keith
Sweeney, Walter


Marland, Paul
Sykes, John


Marlow, Tony
Tapsell, Sir Peter






Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Ward, John


Taylor, John M. (Solihull)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Waterson, Nigel


Temple-Morris, Peter
Watts, John


Thomason, Roy
Wells, Bowen


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Wheeler, Sir John


Thornton, Sir Malcolm
Whitney, Ray


Thurnham, Peter
Whittingdale, John


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Widdecombe, Ann


Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)
Wiggin, Jerry


Tracey, Richard
Wilkinson, John


Tredinnick, David
Wilshire, David


Trend, Michael
Wolfson, Mark


Trotter, Neville
Wood, Timothy


Twinn, Dr Ian
Yeo, Tim


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Viggers, Peter



Waldegrave, Rt Hon William
Tellers for the Ayes:


Walden, George
Mr. Timothy Boswell and Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.


Walker, Bill (N Tayside)



Waller, Gary





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Corbyn, Jeremy


Adams, Mrs Irene
Cousins, Jim


Ainger, Nick
Cox, Tom


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Cryer, Bob


Allen, Graham
Cummings, John


Alton, David
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Cunningham, Dr John (C'p'l'nd)



Armstrong, Hilary
Dafis, Cynog


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Dalyell, Tarn


Ashton, Joe
Darling, Alistair


Austin-Walker, John
Davidson, Ian



Barnes, Harry
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Barron, Kevin
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Battle, John
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)



Bayley, Hugh
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)


Beckett, Margaret
Denham, John


Beggs, Roy
Dewar, Donald


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Dixon, Don


Bell, Stuart
Dobson, Frank


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Donohoe, Brian H.


Bennett, Andrew F.
Dowd, Jim


Benton, Joe
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Bermingham, Gerald
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Berry, Dr. Roger
Eagle, Ms Angela


Betts, Clive
Eastham, Ken


Blair, Tony
Enright, Derek


Blunkett, David
Etherington, Bill


Boateng, Paul
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Boyce, Jimmy
Fatchett, Derek


Boyes, Roland
Faulds, Andrew


Bradley, Keith
Fisher, Mark


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Flynn, Paul


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)


Burden, Richard
Foster, Donald (Bath)


Byers, Stephen
Foulkes, George


Caborn, Richard
Fraser, John


Callaghan, Jim
Fyfe, Maria


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Galbraith, Sam


Campbell, Ronald (Blyth V)
Galloway, George


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Gapes, Mike


Canavan, Dennis
Garrett, John


Cann, Jamie
Gerrard, Neil


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Chisholm, Malcolm
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Clapham, Michael
Godsiff, Roger


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Gordon, Mildred


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Graham, Thomas


Clelland, David
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Coffey, Ann
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Cohen, Harry
Grocott, Bruce


Connarty, Michael
Gunnell, John


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hain, Peter


Corbett, Robin
Hall, Mike





Hanson, David
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Hardy, Peter
Mowlam, Marjorie


Harman, Ms Harriet
Mudie, George


Harvey, Nick
Mullin, Chris


Henderson, Doug
Murphy, Paul


Heppell, John
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Hinchliffe, David
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Hoey, Kate
O'Hara, Edward


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Olner, William


Home Robertson, John
O'Neill, Martin


Hood, Jimmy
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hoon, Geoffrey
Paisley, Rev Ian


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Patchett, Terry


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Pendry, Tom


Hoyle, Doug
Pickthall, Colin


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Pike, Peter L.


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Pope, Greg


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Hutton, John
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Ingram, Adam
Prescott, John


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Primarolo, Dawn


Jackson, Helen (Shefld, H)
Purchase, Ken


Jamieson, David
Quin, Ms Joyce


Janner, Greville
Radice, Giles


Johnston, Sir Russell
Randall, Stuart


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Raynsford, Nick


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Redmond, Martin


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Reid, Dr John


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Jowell, Tessa
Roche, Ms Barbara


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Rogers, Allan


Keen, Alan
Rooker, Jeff


Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C S)
Rooney, Terry



Kennedy, Jane (L'p'l Br'g'n)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Khabra, Piara S.
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Kilfoyle, Peter
Rowlands, Ted


Kirkwood, Archy
Ruddock, Joan


Leighton, Ron
Salmond, Alex


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Sedgemore, Brian


Lewis, Terry
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Livingstone, Ken
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Short, Clare


Loyden, Eddie
Simpson, Alan


Lynne, Ms Liz
Skinner, Dennis


McAllion, John
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


McCartney, Ian
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S &amp; F'sbury)


Macdonald, Calum
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


McFall, John
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


McKelvey, William
Snape, Peter


Mackinlay, Andrew
Soley, Clive


McLeish, Henry
Spearing, Nigel


McMaster, Gordon
Spellar, John


McNamara, Kevin
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


McWilliam, John
Steinberg, Gerry


Madden, Max
Stevenson, George


Maginnis, Ken
Stott, Roger


Mahon, Alice
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Mallon, Seamus
Straw, Jack


Marek, Dr John
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Str'gf'd)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Martlew, Eric
Tipping, Paddy


Maxton, John
Trimble, David


Meacher, Michael
Turner, Dennis


Michael, Alun
Tyler, Paul


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Vaz, Keith


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Milburn, Alan
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Miller, Andrew
Wai ley, Joan


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Wareing, Robert N


Morgan, Rhodri
Watson, Mike


Morley, Elliot
Welsh, Andrew


Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)
Wicks, Malcolm


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)






Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)
Wright, Tony


Wilson, Brian
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Winnick, David



Wise, Audrey
Tellers for the Noes:


Worthington, Tony
Mr. Eric Illsley and Mr. Thomas McAvoy.


Wray, Jimmy

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

TRIBUNALS AND INQUIRIES BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 75 ( Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

PROTECTION OF BADGERS BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 75 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (CONSOLIDATION) BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 75 ( Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

Statutory Instruments, &c

Madam Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to statutory instruments.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101( 1 ) ( Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).

HOUSING (NORTHERN IRELAND)

That the draft Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 29th June, be approved.

FORTH PORTS PLC

That the draft Forth Ports plc (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 17th June, be approved.

OIL PLANTS (SCOTLAND)

That the draft Oil Related and Petrochemical Plants (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 23rd June, be approved.

HORTICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL

That the draft Horticultural Development Council (Amendment) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 25th June, be approved.—[Mr. Patnick.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — European Community Documents

Madam Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to European Community documents.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) ( European Standing Committees.)

WILD BIRDS

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 5185/91 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of the Environment on 9th March 1992, relating to the conservation of wild birds; and calls upon the Government to take the necessary steps to safeguard practicable arrangements for the control of pest bird species in the United Kingdom.

MINES AND QUARRIES

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 6831/92, relating to health and safety of workers in mines and quarries; approves the Government's support for the aims of the Directive; and endorses the Government's view that, in principle, it will be in the United Kingdom's interest to agree to its adoption.

REGISTRATION OF ANIMALS

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 6414/92, relating to the identification and registration of animals; and supports the Government in its intention of securing measures which are practicable, not harmful to animals, and which facilitate veterinary controls together with market support arrangements, but which do not place unfjustifiable burdens on the livestock industry.—[Mr. Patnick.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Office Costs Allowance

Madam Speaker: It might be helpful if I tell hon. Members the procedure to be followed on the motion on office costs allowance. This is important to hon. Members. There will be a joint debate on the motion and the selected amendments which will last for one and a half hours. The amendments selected are amendment (a), to which amendments (c) and (d) are consequential, and amendment (b). At the conclusion of the debate, there will be an opportunity for the amendments to be moved formally and decided, and I shall then put the Question on the main motion.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I beg to move,
That in the opinion of this House—
(1) The limit on the office costs allowance (subject to what follows) should be—

(a) for the year beginning in 1992, £33,190;
(b) for any quarter in the year beginning in 1993, the sum of £8,298 (that is, a quarter to the nearest pound. of £33,190) but increased by any percentage increase by which the standard secretarial salary applicable in that year has increased compared with the standard secretarial salary applicable in the preceding year; and
(c) for any quarter in any subsequent year, the limit for a quarter in the preceding year but increased by any percentage increase by which the standard secretarial salary applicable in the subsequent year has increased compared with the standard secreterial salary applicable in the preceding year.
(2) The limit in relation to Mr. David Blunkett should be 2.57 times that determined in accordance with paragraph (1) above.
(3) Any limit determined in accordance with this Resolution should be calculated to the nearest pound.
(4) In this Resolution—

(a) "year" means a period of twelve months beginning with 1st April;
(b) "quarter" means a period of three months beginning with 1st April, 1st July, 1st October or 1st January.
(c) "the standard secretarial salary" means an amount consisting of the Standard Pay Point for a Senior Personal Secretary in the Home Civil Service in London and the Inner London Weighting.
(5) For the purposes of this Resolution the amount of the standard secretarial salary applicable in any year should be the amount specified by the Treasury as applicable in that year.
The motion represents the Government's recommendation to the House on the way in which we should proceed following the Top Salaries Review Body's report, which I laid before the House last Thursday, and which right hon. and hon. Members will no doubt have studied.
As the House is aware, the report was commissioned a year ago. The report was received in February, but it was felt at that time, as my predecessor indicated in a written answer on 16 March, that it could more properly be considered by the new Parliament. It is a substantial report, which would entail major changes both in the structure and the amount of the allowance, and whatever view may be taken of particular recommendations, I think that the House would wish to express its thanks to the TSRB for the significant effort that the report represents.
It may be that the main issue on which the House will wish to focus is the amount of the allowance, but it is important that I should first say something about what might be called the structural changes proposed, all of

which raise issues separate from the question of the actual sums of money, and which the House also needs to consider on their own merits.
The first of these is the proposal to compartmentalise the allowance, which is at present, of course, a single all-purpose sum, into four separate allowances: one for staff costs, one for general office expenses, one for constituency office expenses where a Member of Parliament occupies only what is described as
basic minimum accommodation at Westminster"—
a description that many hon. Members may think applies to a great deal of accommodation—and an initial acquisition grant for capital equipment, seen as an interim measure pending the central provision of such equipment.
While understanding the perception of improved accountability that underlines the recommendation, the Government doubt whether there would in fact be a significant gain in that respect, given that almost all the expenditure of Members of Parliament on such costs is now disbursed directly by the Fees Office or reimbursed against invoices, and the obvious scope for regarding some items of expenditure as falling under more than one head. Against a gain that would be at best doubtful, what would certainly be lost is the flexibility, which many Members value, to make the most effective use of the allowance—for example, by varying expenditure between staff and other costs—according to what is quite legitimately a wide variety of individual preferences and patterns of working.

Mr. Barry Field: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way on a matter of which I have given him notice. Will he not overlook the mileage allowance which I find has been paid to me incorrectly by the Fees Office, a point which I have drawn to its attention and which I have now arranged to reimburse?

Mr. Newton: I entirely understand my hon. Friend's reasons for raising that point, and I shall duly take note of it. But he will realise that the mileage allowance is not under discussion at the moment.
We see particular problems about the proposal to introduce a specific constituency office allowance, which the report itself acknowledges would entail further work and take time to introduce. In our view, the difficulties would verge on the insuperable, both in agreeing a definition of
basic minimum accommodation at Westminster
and in devising arrangements that would be seen as fairly reflecting the variations between those who do all or most of their work at Westminster, those who do all or most of their work in the constituency, and what I think is probably a growing number who divide it between the two.

Mr. John Garrett: An important part of the right hon. Gentleman's job is to safeguard the rights and privileges of the House and of right hon. and hon. Members. Does he think that he and, in effect, the Treasury should seek to decide the resources that are given to Parliament to scrutinise the Government? Would not that responsibility be better placed in the hands of a Committee of the House—particularly the Commission, now that it has responsibility for the staff of the House, accommodation, and equipment?

Mr. Newton: The appropriate course—and perhaps you, Madam Speaker, might agree, as Chairman of the Commission—is for the House as a whole to decide. The House is being given that opportunity tonight.
The Government are firmly of the view that the most sensible course is to retain a single, undivided allowance—and the resolution provides for that. I shall mention one smaller change of merit that flows from the report that could be seen as being of a structural kind, and which the resolution also covers.
We propose that eligibility to the office costs allowance should be calculated on a quarterly basis from 1 April 1993. That will rectify a long-standing anomaly, whereby a Member of Parliament leaving or joining the House part way through the year is entitled to claim against a full year's allowance. I know that that matter is of concern to one or two hon. Members who have mentioned it to me in the Corridors.
I should stress that that change does not mean that right hon. and hon. Members must claim the OCA on a quarterly basis or lose entitlement. Claims can still be submitted as and when Members of Parliament wish. The only change is in the total maximum amount to which a right hon. or hon. Member who enters or leaves the House during the year is entitled. I hope that clarifies that point.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: Before the right hon. Gentleman moves on from the separate provision for office costs, and while I accept his general point, telephones in the House are free to right hon. and hon. Members, but that is not the case in their constituencies. I run my office from my constituency, where the phone bill approaches £1,000 a year. I cannot understand why a provision similar to that available in the House should not be made available at a Member of Parliament's constituency office, where his secretary works.

Mr. Newton: My understanding—I assume that the hon. Gentleman has made appropriate inquiries-is that costs properly incurred by a Member of Parliament in performing his duties, and whether the telephone used is in his constituency office or at Westminster, could be properly claimed and reimbursed.

Mr. Taylor: I was making the point that office telephone expenses incurred by our secretaries at Westminster do not count against the OCA, but they do in the constituency.

Mr. Newton: I am sorry—I mistook the hon. Gentleman's point. In practice, it is virtually impossible for the allowances to take full account, especially if we retain a single, undivided allowance—I sense some support around the House for that proposition—of every possible variation. The point could be made, for example, that right hon. and hon. Members who undertake most of their work in their constituencies may incur lower costs—although that too will vary from one part of the country to another—than Members of Parliament whose work is done at London rates. That illustrates the kind of difficulty that can arise if we attempt to over-refine the allowance.

Mr. Tony Benn: The right hon. Gentleman represents the Executive, and he is discussing the provisions for the legislature. Can he give even one example of a civil servant controlled by the Government who has a single sum for his secretary, telephone, equipment, or office space? Not one civil servant must operate under the same conditions that he is trying to impose on right hon. and hon. Members.

Mr. Newton: Again, I understand the point that is being made, not least in the context of a number of decisions that have been made over the years. The House has chosen to link some aspects of its remuneration to civil service rates, but I do not believe that there is a complete and sustainable parallel between the way in which civil servants are provided with the facilities to do their jobs and the way in which Members of Parliament are provided with the facilities to do a different job.
The second structural issue is the report's proposal to move as rapidly as possible to the central procurement of information technology equipment, and meanwhile to introduce an initial equipment allowance, partly offset by a reduction in the general office expenses allowance in the year in which that equipment allowance is taken.
The Government believe that the case for central provision of IT equipment needs a good deal of further consideration. We think that many Members of Parliament are likely to welcome continued flexibility to lease or purchase the equipment that is most suited to their individual needs. Savings equivalent to those achievable through central procurement might well be obtained by call-off contracts, without the need for bulk purchase by a central authority. Such an authority would inevitably base its specification on generalised requirements, rather than on individual needs.
The House is currently undertaking a networking study, in the light of which further recommendations on compatible IT equipment may be drawn up. Although the Government have considerable reservations about a centralised system of procurement for office equipment, we think it sensible to allow the Select Committee on Information to examine the TSRB's proposals on the provision of equipment in the light of the networking study before a final decision is reached. I hope that hon. Members will agree that that approach is sensible. We do not, however, recommend the implementation of a separate one-off initial acquisition grant as an interim measure.
The third structural issue raised by the report is the proposal to create a Personnel Office, separate from the Fees Office, to
provide advice and guidance on personnel matters to MPs and their staff, in particular on rates of pay, and to review the pension provisions for MPs' staff".
While recognising the reasons for such a proposal, we are also conscious of the concern expressed by many Members that such an office could be seen as moving unacceptably towards intervening in, and centralising, the many individual arrangements that currently exist. Subject to the views of the House—I emphasise that—we do not recommend proceeding with this proposal, and accordingly the motion that I have moved this evening does not provide for it.
I shall, of course, listen carefully to all that is said about those issues in the debate, and I shall also listen to what is said by hon. Members who make their views known in the many other ways open to them. I am, however, somewhat encouraged—although, I hope, not unduly so—by the absence from the Order Paper of amendments on what might be described as structural points, apart from amendment (b), which you have selected, Madam Speaker. Although I suspect that that amendment is aimed at the level of allowance, it would also delay until 1994 the


coming into effect of the switch to a quarterly basis for hon. Members joining or leaving the House, to which I referred earlier.
The same absence of amendments does not, however, apply to the issue of the amount of an increased but non-compartmentalised allowance.

Dr. Gavin Strang: Surely the reason for the absence of amendments from the Order Paper is the fact that, in the limited time of an hour and a half, it clearly would not have been possible for the House to do justice to all the important recommendations in the report. Will the Leader of the House give an undertaking that, once the main decision has been made on the increase or otherwise in the money, we can return to the other issues after the summer recess?

Mr. Newton: I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's point, although I had not realised that that was the reason for the absence of what might be called structural amendments. As I have said, I—indeed, everyone—will
listen carefully to what is said in the House tonight, and that includes anything that the hon. Gentleman wishes to say about these or any other points.
I was about to deal with the amount of an undivided allowance—if I may use that shorthand. Let me first set out clearly the scale of the increase to which the report's proposals as a whole would give rise.
At the very least, the maximum allowance for every Member would rise from £28,986 in 1991–92 to £37,360 in 1992–93. For those taking the full constituency allowance and the initial equipment allowance—the latter partly offset by a reduced general office expenses allowance—the 1992–93 maximum would be £42,360. Thus, in percentage terms, the maximum increase would range from 23·6 per cent. to 40·2 per cent., in addition to the 4·25 per cent. increase due from April, in line with the existing uprating formula, giving overall increases in the maximum of between 28·9 per cent. and 46·1 per cent. on the 1991–92 figure.

Mr. Alun Michael: Does the Leader of the House not recognise that percentages are meaningless and that those figures should be compared with the £75,000 or thereabouts that is available for Members of the European Parliament, who have a much smaller burden of case work than Members of this House?

Mr. Newton: I am aware that comparisons are sometimes drawn with Members of the European Parliament, both in this and in other ways. I have two points to make about that. First, their working patterns and methods are entirely different from ours. [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. I should be obliged if the House would not be so restive. It is only right that the Leader of the House should be given a proper and a fair hearing. He is having very great difficulty at the present time.

Mr. Newton: I do not think that the existence of higher allowances in any other country to which reference might be made can necessarily be taken as providing a good guide to what this House should do at this time in the situation in which Members of Parliament find themselves.
I have underlined the scale of the percentage increases that would be entailed if the report were to be implemented

in full. The second point is that the background is not one of prolonged erosion of value but of significant real improvement by comparison with the position not so many years ago. As the survey at the back of the report itself observes:
any MP who was a Member of the House before the late '60s will testify that since then the position of the British MP has been transformed.
While the context of that comment goes wider than help with office costs, it is in fact the case that, between 1979 and 1991, the office costs allowance increased by 530 per cent., in cash terms, representing an increase of one and a half times in real terms.
I make these points not because they can or should in themselves be conclusive, but because I think that they need to be taken into account by the House in making its judgment—and it is its judgment—bearing in mind also the considerable and inevitable uncertainty about the exact scale of the problem that the report seeks to address.
There will certainly be few in the House who would quarrel with the view that our work load as constituency MPs has continued to rise in recent years, but there are, I think, many who question whether the increase has really been on such a scale since the last big uplift in the mid-1980s, followed by annual upratings, as to justify a further increase now of the size that full implementation would entail.
There is another factor that the House cannot—I repeat, cannot—escape taking into account in making its judgment, any more than the Government can escape taking it into account in considering what recommendation they should make and, indeed, in making their decision on another Top Salaries Review Body report which has recently commanded attention. That is the wider context in which these proposals come forward—at a time when it is necessary to constrain public expenditure and when so many other individuals and groups are being asked to accept restraint, or are finding it necessary to impose it on themselves. I have to say, quite simply, that the Government do not believe that the evidence would justify the House in going as far as the report suggests, or as far as some of the amendments to the resolution seek.

Mr. Clive Soley: The Leader of the House is not taking the House with him with this part of his argument, and I am not surprised. It is clearly weak, because he is now making comparisons with personal income. The allowance is to enable parliamentarians to do their job properly. Will he deal with that aspect and say why he thinks the TSRB is wrong to state that we need the money to do the job properly in Parliament?

Mr. Newton: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that my remarks just now were not related solely to salary issues. I said specifically that many other individuals and groups were being asked to accept restraint or finding it necessary to impose it on themselves. That affects not only people's salaries but many other things that they would wish to do if there were no difficulty.

Mr. George Walden: I have listened carefully to my right hon. Friend's rational and persuasive presentation of the issue, and I am glad that he is about to deal with public perceptions. Let us not fool ourselves: whatever the rights and wrongs of the issue, it is being observed by the public out there, and the public are about


to undergo an economic phase in which they will have not inflation-plus rises but perhaps inflation-minus rises. They will ask themselves why we are behaving like a 1970s trade union and awarding ourselves increases for reasons that they will never understand.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Newton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes a point which obviously struck a chord with a number of hon. Members.

Mr. David Blunkett: Will the Leader of the House confirm that the advocacy of restraint has come from the Treasury, which, in a reply to me today, states that, on policy and advice alone, it spends more than £28 million a year, on outside consultancies £2·8 million and on hospitality £115,000 a year?

Mr. Newton: The suggestion that the House needs to act with reasonable restraint comes not from the Treasury but from many Conservative Members and, most recently, from my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) a moment or two ago.
The resolution therefore rests on the proposition that, while it is right that a significant increase should be made in the office costs allowance, over and above inflation, it should be based not on the additional half-member of staff proposed in the report, but on an additional one quarter, together with the full £4,000 proposed for general office expenses. That gives an increase from £28,986 to £33,190, representing a real increase of 9·8 per cent. And—with the normal uprating increase of 4·25 per cent.—an overall cash increase of 14·5 per cent.
We believe that this proposal, while clearly less than the TSRB recommended, strikes a fair balance between the interests of our constituents as taxpayers and the undoubted need of hon. Members for sufficient support to carry out their duties. It would bring a real improvement in the funding for Members' secretarial and research costs, and I commend it to the House.

Dr. John Cunningham: I have sat through many similar debates in my 22 years in the House, and this one is typical of most of them.
The Government commission an independent report. They establish a committee of people who are distinguished in their fields, under the chairmanship of Sir David Nickson. The secretariat is provided by the Office of Manpower Economics. Hay Management undertakes the research. The committee takes many months to do its work. It takes evidence from hon. Members on both sides of the House. The Government receive the report, suppress it, leak it selectively to the newspapers so that it is grossly misrepresented, then come to the House and tell us that they propose to ignore all the main conclusions of the work.
That is a recipe for confusing the public, and it does the case of the Leader of the House and the Government no good at all to confuse—whether by accident or design—allowances granted to Members of this House to enable them to employ staff with their personal incomes. That is remiss of the right hon. Gentleman and those few people in the press who seek to convince the public that the debate

is about the incomes of Members of Parliament. I know that that annoys many hon. Members, but, even more, it annoys our staff—those for whom we must fight in such debates, who have families, homes and mortgages to maintain and who are entitled to much better treatment and conditions than we are able to provide for them whether here at Westminster or in our constituencies.
There is a rumour going round the House—I do not know whether it is true or not; perhaps we may be advised—that the Government Chief Whip has been effortlessly gliding around the Corridors and Rooms of the House trying, for once, to ensure that the Government do not win in the Lobby tonight.
I may say that, in this context, the present Government are no better and no worse than Labour Governments, who also have a pretty undistinguished record on these matters. But if they want to absolve themselves of responsibility for the decision that I hope the House will take in a little while, as they apparently do, it would be better if they accepted the advice of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett), whose point of view I share, and handed responsibility for this matter to the House of Commons Commission, which already has responsibility for every other aspect of the budget of the House. That would ensure that the House, on the recommendation of the Commission, no doubt following some similar work, could make its own decision, quite detached from the Executive of the day.
In my experience, the only Prime Minister who has dealt with this matter properly and expeditiously is the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), who received the report, published it quickly and implemented it in full. On that occasion, all the fuss quickly went away. The Government have dragged the process out, with all the consequences that we face this evening—not just for ourselves, I emphasise, but for the people to whom we have a responsibility as employers.
Let me refer briefly to what the report says in its conclusions. Paragraph 51 states:
These recommendations arise from our general conclusion from all the available evidence that the pressures and demands on MPs have altered since our last report, and that their workload has increased substantially. Accordingly, we believe that further resources are necessary to enable MPsproperly to perform their jobs.
Paragraph 53 says:
Together our recommendations are consistent with the objective referred to at paragraph 11 that MPs should receive allowances which are sufficient to enable them to fulfil their duties, but that the way in which the allowances are used should meet high standards of public accountability and employment practice.
No one, surely, could disagree with any of that-except, apparently, the Government, for reasons that are not altogether clear following the speech made by the Leader of the House.

Mr. John Gorst: Perhaps I may help the hon. Gentleman by suggesting that the reasons are clear. The money to which we are referring is to enable Back-Bench and Front-Bench Members to examine what the Executive are doing. The Government have an interest, I suspect, in ensuring that it is as little as possible.

Dr. Cunningham: I am delighted that I gave way to the hon. Gentleman. He anticipated the remarks that I was about to make, and I wholeheartedly agree with what he said. After elections, Ministers go to their offices and get a nice new Rover or Daimler. Everything is provided for


them and they like what they have. I do not blame them for that. However, the last thing that they want to face day in, day out, is a better-informed, better-resourced House of Commons. The hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) was absolutely right.
As the taxpayer's interest has been mentioned, I make no apology for saying that it is in the taxpayer's interest to have a better-informed, better-resourced House of Commons with hon. Members who are more easily able to take on and challenge the decisions of the Executive. Nothing can be more in the taxpayer's interests than that.
I am very sorry about the way in which the Government have handled the matter and the recommendations that they have put before the House in the motion which I hope that the House will reject. I understand that at least some of the spouses of right hon. and hon. Members on the Treasury Bench are also pretty sorry about that. I guess that those who quite legitimately and properly employ their spouses as secretaries to aid them will get a bit of an ear-bashing when they get home tonight if the Government get their way. That is all well and good.
I must say to our friends, the ladies and gentlemen of the press who may want to record our deliberations, that I should be very happy for them all to write whatever they want to write about our decisions, accurate or otherwise, so long as they all publish under their columns their expenses for the past three months.
I hope that the House will listen carefully to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) who will shortly move amendment (a), which I endorse, and which I invite all right hon. and hon. Members who are not the subject of the authoritarian activities of the Patronage Secretary, to endorse also.
Amendment (a) is computed on the basis of what the recommendations of the Top Salaries Review Body report would mean to us, given that we accept, at least for the moment—I stress, for the moment—the Government's intention to continue to pay the allowance as a lump sum in the way that it has been paid in the past. I know that many hon. Members want to examine that aspect of that decision in more detail later, but tonight is not the occasion to do that.
Amendment (a) takes the Government's recommendation of one allowance and adds to it the consequences of the recommendations of the TSRB. It is accurately and

fairly calculated and I believe that it is right that at least that aspect of the recommendations of the people who did all that work over so many months, and who reached such emphatic conclusions and clear recommendations, should be implemented.

Mr. Julian Brazier: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will refer to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) who said that there are millions of people outside this place, in the public sector as well as the private sector, who are experiencing very difficult financial circumstances. They will misunderstand the hon. Gentleman—I speak as someone who is to visit his dentist in the next few days.

Dr. Cunningham: There are indeed millions of people outside this place in very difficult circumstances. However, it is rather peculiar that it is only on occasions like this that the hon. Gentleman seems to remember that they are there.

In the time th: at I have enjoyed the privilege of being a Member of the House, very few of my constituents have ever seriously complained about the provision for hon. Members to do an effective job on their behalf. Indeed, I have had far more remarks and observations from people in business and in industry and commerce who are astonished at the mediaeval nature of this place and the provisions not simply for us but for the people who work long hours on our behalf in conditions which, if we were acting like the trade union to which the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) referred, would not be tolerated for a moment, not least because they do not meet the basic requirements of the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act, and this place would be closed down if the law applied to it.
Let us have no hypocrisy about what the public think and about taxpayer's interests, thank you very much. The public want, especially in these circumstances, more effective checks and balances to be placed upon the Government. I urge the House to take this opportunity, which is the only opportunity that new hon. Members will have in this Parliament, to strike a blow in the interests of greater and more effective scrutiny of the Executive, in the interests of our constituents and ourselves, and not least the people whom we employ, and vote for amendment (a).

Mr. Jerry Wiggin: I have put my name to amendment (a). I am grateful for the opportunity to say that the Government were absolutely right to commission the report. The fact that they commissioned it recognises the substantial change that has taken place in the duties of Back-Bench Members, not just in their weekly mail but in their wider responsibilities, in the extra costs of employing highly skilled secretaries who now have a substantial job to do beyond just typing letters, and, of course, in the increased costs of office equipment. Any hon. Member who has recently sought to sell a second-hand typewriter or early computer will recognise that there are no great capital gains to be made in buying office equipment.
We have a unique job, which is scarcely ever recognised outside this place. It is unique because it is carried out in two separate places, it is carried out for ourselves, yet we have a sort of employer, it is different and it has to be seen as different.
I congratulate the review body on the immense trouble tht it has taken and on its appreciation of many of the special difficulties that assail us. There will never be a perfect arrangement for us. Our London living allowance, for example, is a crazy calculation, but we are not debating that; we are debating the office costs, which gradually, over the years, have become more sensible. I take the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) made, that this matter is not about our salaries or our income. I am delighted with the way that it has been reviewed, but perhaps there are those who think that, because the review has been headed "Top Salaries Review Body", there is some misapprehension. As every hon. Member does, I have to justify every penny of expenditure that I claim, and it has to be justified as an expense in association with my parliamentary duties. In no way could that be regarded as salary or pay.
It has been a long struggle to realism in getting our allowances put right. Since I have been in the House, 13 such reports have been referred to review bodies. The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) was right to say that only one was adopted by the Government. It caused no difficulty, it went through quickly, and that was a way to handle it. I am very sorry that, yet again, by this attempt at cheeseparing, the Government have produced controversy, misunderstanding and a dispute which need never have existed had they published the report and adopted it.
The Government, if they propose to deal with these matters by referring them to review bodies, must decide in advance to accept the review bodies' reports. Otherwise they should not bother in the first place. They could just as easily make an arbitrary decision without all this work, without all the effort to arrive at a proper assessment. I make this plea to the Minister; whatever the result of tonight's votes, let the Government, before repeating this exercise, as they will surely have to do in respect of other aspects of our salary and expenses, take into account the point that I have just made. If they do not do so, they will not get responsible people to sit on these boards, and an undesirable disallowance factor will be built in. I urge my hon. Friend to accept the amendment in full and without question. If he were to do so, we should have no controversy at all.

Mr. Chris Smith: This is, and should be, a House of Commons matter. It is not a matter for determination by the Executive, and when the Executive make a recommendation, it should be reviewed with a healthy scepticism.
At heart, this debate is about how we can make sure that we can do a proper job for our constituents. The pressure on Members of Parliament has increased dramatically in recent years, and it continues to increase. There is legislation to scrutinise; there are Select and Standing Committees to take part in; there is now a flood of European Community directives to take note of and to follow through. At the last count, about two years ago, I found that I dealt with about 6,000 individual constituency cases in a year. I hold five surgeries a month, each lasting five or six hours. The flow of correspondence from constituents get greater and greater every year.
The Leader of the House says that there has been no dramatic increase in the work load of MPs since we last debated this matter. I do not know whether that is true of his constituency, but it is certainly not true of mine. Surely, if we are to do our job properly, we need to be able, as a bare minimum, to employ two full-time staff, to pay them properly, and give them decent conditions of work, and properly to establish and equip an office in the constituency.
As other hon. Members have said. this debate is not about MPs' salaries or perks, although some people much more well heeled than we are have sought to convince the public that that is the case. This debate is about our having the back-up to do our job. I should very much like to see changes in the system of the block allowance. I certainly favour central arrangements for the purchase of equipment. That would be much more cost-effective. There should be much more open disclosure of what happens to our allowances, and there should be proper conditions and contracts for the people we employ.
These are the things we could do to improve the system that has been put before us, but I am afraid that they are not open for discussion tonight. In the meantime, we have the report of the Top Salaries Review Body and the Government's motion. The review body suggests that the allowance should be disaggregated, that it should be split up into blocks for staff, office equipment, a constituency office and a setting-up allowance. For a variety of reasons, some good, some bad, the Government have said that they do not wish to go along with that proposal. For the purposes of the debate, I am happy to accept that position.
The amounts proposed by the review body are as follows: £33,360 to employ two staff; £4,000 for office equipment; £2,000 for a constituency—I observe that £2,000 would probably be sufficient to rent a broom cupboard in my constituency—and, in effect, because of the discounting that takes place if we claim, a setting-up allowance of £3,000.
What I have done in my amendment is simple. I have taken the amounts for staff, office equipment and a constituency office and divided the setting-up allowance of £3,000 by five, because it is supposed to last five years. I have added up all those figures. The result is the figure of £39,960 in my amendment. The Government propose a substantially lower figure than the amount recommended by the review body. The Government's proposal is £33,190.
Even tonight, the Leader of the House has not given us any justification of the figure and how it was arrived at. He has told us that is a percentage, but he has not told us why it is that percentage. It is as if the Government have simply decided on that figure. They have plucked it out of the air. That is the figure on the Order Paper. The alternative in my amendment is to take the total amount that the review body proposed and substitute it for the Government's figure.
Parliament is not the Executive. We are here to do two specific jobs which no one else can do: first, to act as advocates for our constituents; secondly, to scrutinise and hold to account the workings of the Government. To do both those jobs properly we need the necessary resources. I urge colleagues from all parties—it is a House of Commons matter, not an Executive matter-to support my amendment.

Mr. Stuart Bell: I shall formally move my amendment when called upon to do so, Madam Speaker but I shall speak to it now.
My amendment takes into consideration the Government's position. We accept that there is a recession. We accept what the Leader of the House said about the wider context and why it was necessary to constrain public expenditure. Opposition and Conservative Members and, indeed, the country are prepared to wait for the recession to turn. We are waiting for the green shoots of springtime to become flowers, buds or shrubs. We shall be ready when that happens.
We must also accept that our work load has increased, but we do not accept the definition of the work load given by the Leader of the House. I refer again to the statement made by my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) that, according to the report, our work load has increased substantially. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) also referred to our substantial and increasing workload. The retreads—those who have come into the House since the election and were previously Members of Parliament—say that the greatest thing that has struck them is the increase in their mail and work load and the difficulty that they have in coping with it. That is an additional reason for accepting the amendment rather than the Government's motion.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), who may catch your eye later, Madam Speaker, was the first to draw attention to the fact that the House of Commons is essentially a legislature which exists to control the Executive. The hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) and my hon. Friends the Members for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) and for Islington, South and Finsbury reiterated that.
We are here to hold the Government—the Executive—to account and it is the absolute duty of the legislature so to do.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Does the hon. Gentleman confirm that the report of the Top Salaries Review Body says that, since it last reported, there has been a 50 per cent. increase in the number of letters with which we have to deal? It simply recommends an increase of one third in our staff levels, from one and a half to two. Clearly, the level of work coming into this place will be

measured and, in addition to increases for inflation, we should have an increase for our staff because of the volume of work with which they have to deal.

Mr. Bell: The hon. Member makes my point for me. In an aside, my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) referred to one of the issues with which we have to deal from time to time—whales. All of us find it difficult to cope with the mail in our post bags. Each letter received by a Member of Parliament generates four more letters. When an issue arises, it becomes impossible to cope with the burden. That is why we need appropriate secretarial and research assistance and appropriate allowances, so that assistants can "do their jobs properly"—as my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) said in an intervention.
I wish to draw the attention of the House to another significant factor. This is the last occasion for us to debate this issue in the present Parliament; it may be about seven or eight years before we debate it again. This Parliament will eventually end and there will be another review. Perhaps we shall take up the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) that the matter should be debated by a House of Commons Commission and that we should await its conclusions. The vote tonight will be the last vote for several years.
I do not propose to delay the House at length, but I repeat the argument of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield: it is the duty of the House to hold the Government accountable.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: If some hon. Members have misgivings about the proposed increase in the limit for one reason or another—collective or individual reasons of restraint—they do not have to claim the maximum; they can claim much less.

Mr. Bell: It is optional; I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point.
Amendment (b) tries to take into account the Government's desire not to enhance secretarial allowances too much at this time, but to accept that the full amount to which my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury referred, should be given next year, as this may well be the last review for five or six years. Our constituents, the taxpayer and the legislature will benefit, and the Executive will be held to greater account.

Mr. Alex Carlile: The Leader of the House sought to justify the payment of a lower figure than that recommended by the Top Salaries Review Body by reference to salaries paid to certain public servants. I suggest that that is a misleading analogy, because we are not talking about salaries. I suspect that the Leader of the House has been reading too many newspapers, as the implication in some of them has been that the allowances would be a means of feathering our nests. The only way in which a Member can feather his or her nest through the allowances is by fraud.
Some newspapers have suggested that some Members might commit the shocking act of paying their spouse to work for them. Someone ought to say in this debate that if any spouse does a genuine job of work for any Member of Parliament, they are entitled to be paid a proper rate for the job, and many are not.
Earlier, I talked to one of my hon. Friends whose wife has worked for many years in a remote place as his full-time secretary. Such is the feathering of their nest that she is now paid about £8,000 a year for that full-time job. He cannot afford to pay her more, because his allowance is committed in other ways. I hope that I shall not provoke a major row in the domesticity of Scotland if I say that I think that my hon. Friend is underpaying his wife disgracefully. That should not happen.
The Leader of the House told us that the Government had decided, because of general economic conditions, that the figure should be reduced from the recommendation to £33,190. One is tempted to say that the Government are very willing to rely on consultants' reports when they suit them, but it is another matter when they do not. What on earth was the point of the arm's-length TSRB report on this important issue if the conclusions of those independent people are to be ignored?
What evidence does the Leader of the House have to support the figure of £33,190? I thought that the right hon. Gentleman would tell us that we did not need to employ two whole-time people or an office in our constituency—incidentally, one certainly could not obtain an office even in rural Wales for £2,000. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman would produce evidence to support his claim that we did not need research assistants. Where is the evidence that Government briefings in notes on clauses on the Bills that we consider in Committee are an adequate basis for discussing or even opposing parts of those Bills? We did not hear a word of evidence from the right hon. Gentleman about those issues.
I am sure that many right hon. and hon. Members share my disappointment at the fact that the Government, relying on no evidence, have simply decided that hon. Members should have underfunded offices. It is time for us to tell the Government that hon. Members are not prepared to service their constituents poorly because their offices are underfunded. I believe in the principle of compartmentalising the allowances, because they could then be scrutinised more effectively.
A constituency allowance would be extremely useful, but while we have the present lump sum system, we have certain purposes to serve. Our first purpose is to serve our constituents. Even nine years ago, when I came into the House, we were not subject to organised mailing—sometimes it is nationally organised. Then, there were not as many word processors, which has led to so many personalised letters being sent to us. We must reply to those letters if we are to be competent, effective Members of Parliament.
I have added my name to amendment (a). I hope that new Conservative Members in particular will realise that, if they are to do efficiently the job to which they have had the privilege of being elected, they too should vote for that amendment. Otherwise, in three or four years, they will find that they are struggling—running hard to stand still. I do not believe that that is right for Members of this honourable House.

Mr. Ken Maginnis: I support the amendment and I realise that certain elements of the press may expect me to feel guilty about that. I do

not. To be blunt, I wonder how some London journalists dare to write about us when they receive up to twice the salary of Members, as well as a large expense account. I think that they do rather well. Of course they work rather long hours, I am told—I think that we do as well. We are not here tonight to talk about Members' salaries, and that does not bother me greatly. As an ex-village schoolmaster, traditionally underpaid, I can make do on my present salary. While it is inadequate compared with what legislators receive in other countries, I can live on it.
However, I am angry over the totally inadequate back-up resources that I have at my disposal and the fact that the interests of my wife and children have to be sacrificed to make up the shortfall between what I receive and what I spend to service my constituency. Members must already work too hard for too long, away from their families, without having that added pressure.
In the last financial year, I overspent my office allowance by £5,044. In the previous year I overspent by about £2,000. I have to find that from my personal resources—in other words, from my current salary—as I have no private means. I have a mortgage and two children at university. It is not a painless exercise for my wife and myself. I pity new Members, with young families, who came here in April.
My staff, who are excellent, must be paid, but they are not paid what they are worth. Nor do they have a properly equipped office in which to work. For example, the photocopier that I bought nine years ago, when I was first elected, now manages about three reproductions before it has to be switched off, allowed to cool down and switched on again. I cannot afford to replace it.
The further one's constituency from London, the more acute the problem becomes. The most disadvantaged are Northern Ireland Members, although the problem applies in varying degrees to Members from Scotland, the north-east and all constituencies that are distant from Westminster.
Because of the remoteness of Fermanagh and South Tyrone, for example—the issue is further complicated by the direct rule system—I find myself with a constant conflict of duties. How do I divide my time between Westminster, where I want to play a full part as a United Kingdom Member, and Northern Ireland, where the interests of my constituents are dealt with almost exclusively from within the Northern Ireland Office at Stormont? Partly to resolve the issue at constituency level, I am obliged to employ two full-time and two part-time staff. As Northern Ireland does not have a meaningful local government stratum, virtually no problems can be resolved at town hall level. They all arrive on my desk.
Let me compare myself with a parliamentary colleague in, say, the south of England. I do not denigrate his or her work, but their parochial duties are often dealt with at local government level, and one secretary or personal assistant and a researcher can work here in the House, where they have access to free telephones and a library service.
My telephone bill in Fermanagh and South Tyrone for the last year was about £3,750. My main constituency office in Dungannon costs me, including rent and rates, about £3,000 per annum. My Enniskillen office, which is over 40 miles away from the Dungannon office, costs a further £2,000. In addition to lighting and heating bills, I


am obliged to maintain three separate sets of word processors, one in Dungannon, one in Enniskillen and a laptop machine that I carry for my own use.
The TSRB consultants who interviewed me came and saw the situation in my office and constituency. I suggested that there should be a scale of allowances, related to distance from the House, ranging from £40,000 to £55,000 per Member. At present, my absolute minimum requirement to maintain my present position is £35,000 and I would need a further £10,000 to £15,000 if I were ever to hope to employ a secretary-cum-research assistant in this place. I do not have one at present.
At a time when the Prime Minister is promoting his people's charter, should not we start in the House by ensuring that those who are elacted can pay their staff a reasonable wage so that the constituents who sent us here can expect a response to their problems? It must be remembered that Members are not handed the money as a lump sum but must reclaim it, having provided the necessary receipts. If some Members do not require the full amount, they do not have to spend it, but those of us with difficult constituencies, for whatever reason, should not be penalised.
I suppose that it is not wise to reveal the details of one's business as I have done. I do not make out that I am a martyr; like most hon. Members, I enjoy my job and want to do it properly. None the less, I feel that the public should know how wrong it is for the Government to propose to underfund the work and business of this House because it diminishes the House and those who work here.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: In the 1970s when Clive Jenkins was the leader of the Association of Scientific, Technical and Managerial Staffs union, I remember calculating that a skilled white collar worker needed to invest some £31,000 a year to be effective in his job. To extrapolate from that and bring it up to date, it must be double that sum today. People running a business and providing the information services that we provide would have to find such sums out of their profits on top of their salaries, which I admit may be less than a Member of Parliament receives.
In my first year in this place I got away with a reasonable electric typewriter and a secretary, but since I have been here the work load has grown and I have gone from a typewriter with a screen, to an Amstrad, to a £4,500 machine with a laser printer. That is not because I am fond of equipment, but because it was essential to match the growing work load.
It is improper for us to be too censorious about the increase when we consider the number of hours and quality of work that we get from our secretarial back-up, most of which is carried out by women who are usually considered worthy of being paid slightly less than if a man were doing that job. If men provided the back-up secretarial assistance, we would be asking for much more. The women who back us up with clerical efforts and skills are worthy of a reasonable salary because they must cope with London prices. Many people outside who will scrutinise the sums that we talk about may deal with considerably lower salary scales, but they do not have to face up to the costs of living in the city—essentially for travel and rents.
For all those reasons, we should adopt the figure that the review body recommended. Unless we do so, we cannot match the service that our constituents require. I find that a day's surgery generates some two days of work for my secretary. That is a fairly modest work load because my constituency is, fortunately, quite prosperous and does not generate as many case histories as some colleagues must cope with weekly.
I need a research assistant because of the many problems thrown up by the legislation that we in the House are constantly passing. The ordinary citizen needs an encyclopaedia, a citizens advice bureau and sometimes a solicitor in order to understand the way in which it impinges on their ordinary lives. We generate the problem. We must, therefore, at least provide the assistance and the back-up to help people cope with it.
I and a number of my colleagues now pay the Fees Office to be here—my contribution has gone from nil in the first year when I did not spend all my allowance, to barely breaking even in the second year, to £3,000 in my third year, to £5,000 in the last year but one, to more than £7,000 in the last year out of my salary in order to meet my work load, which colleagues may well think is partly self-generated, but I make no apology for that. That is my own choice, but for many colleagues that is a difficult matter with which to cope.
We should stop pussyfooting around, remember the people who do our wonderful back-up work—there are as many women working in this place as there are men, toiling away in the background, at salaries substantially less than ours, but deserving much better—bite this little bullet and make it clear to the public that we do this so that we can provide a reasonable service. Until we can cut down the legislative tendency of the Front Benches of both parties when in office, we should provide the service that the public need.

Mr. Tony Benn: The hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) has made a powerful case on behalf of those who work for Members of Parliament and it is one that the House will disregard at its peril.
We are discussing not a financial but a democratic question. The Leader of the House is here to represent Members. He is the bridge between the Government and the House. I notice six civil servants in the Box who have advised him on his speech and no doubt will check carefully what he said. Not one of the civil servants whom he employs will be working under the conditions that he thinks it right we should work under with the staff that we employ.
As I said in an intervention, not a single civil servant has to choose between a computer, his secretary, a telephone call and his office rent—not one. We are discussing the relationship between the Executive and the legislature. Therefore, this is not an occasion for the usual sort of argument that we have in the House; it is one of those rare but important occasions when the House as a House looks at what the Government are prepared to do.
It is no good telling us what the percentage improvements are. Before 1910, Members of Parliament were not paid at all, and I am sure that if, instead of holding elections, we put out parliamentary seats to private tender the House could be filled with people who would be happy to pay to have the privilege of the


influence that we have. When I was elected, I received £30 a week, no secretarial allowance, no franked postage, no office and, no telephone allowance and I was even prevented from bringing in a tape recorder to dictate here by someone from the Serjeant at Arms' office because some people did not approve of them. It is no good telling me that we are better off than we were then. The question is whether we are properly equipped to do the job that we now have to do.
Every time I go to my constituency—this is true of every hon. Member—everyone I meet is my employer. A number of people have written to me saying, "We haven't had a reply to the letter that we wrote to you, Mr. Benn," or, "We sent you a message and when shall we get an answer?" But no one has ever told me that my office is stuffed with unnecessary staff, because that is not the case. The truth is that we have to work with local authorities, district and county councils and Government Departments and, now that the agencies have been hived off, we have to chase them up as well. Every time the Government privatise anything, they set up a regulatory body. We are a regulatory body, but the Government say that we cannot do the job that we have to do.
Every hon. Member has his own personal experience. I shall not recite mine, but without the work of one Member of Parliament the Birmingham Six might still be in prison. That work took him years and years of effort. The same applies to other hon. Members. The hon. Member for Billericay has been active in promoting legislation. That is over and above the call of duty, as military citations used to say, but it is an important role for a Member of Parliament. We have to deal with our constituents and our localities, and weekly surgeries lasting five or six hours—as the my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) mentioned. Some of the cases are tragic and involve all sorts of matters. People come to us because they feel that there is nowhere else that they can go.
As to the number of letters, during the Gulf war I received 12,000 letters—including one from almost every hostage in Baghdad. They wrote saying who they were and describing their medical condition, because they knew that I was going there. Was it not part of my duty to reply to them all? If I had not had the assistance of four or five volunteers in my office, that job could not possibly have been done.
We deal also with parliamentary questions; speeches, early-day motions, Bills, Committee work and campaigns of one kind and another. All that requires proper staffing.
There has been an enormous growth in Executive power over the years. I once worked out—I have not updated my figures—that Government expenditure in the first 50 years of my life, from 1925 to 1974, rose 1,000 per cent. in real terms. The number of Members of Parliament is virtually the same as it was in 1925, but we cover a wider range of activity.
Mention has been made of the enormous growth also in the number of pressure groups. I cannot say that I care for some of them, but I agree with others. They bombard us with information. They are well-resourced—they have staff, computers and fax machines. We have to judge whether we agree with them. There is also the growth in the media. One has only to go to 4 Millbank to know that

—it will not be long before they are bigger than we are. We will be at 4 Millbank, and the media will be over here, because they need more space.
All staff should be employed and properly paid by the Government. We could select them, but they would be paid from the public account. All equipment should be provided and, when a Member of Parliament is defeated or retires, he would hand it back—in the same way that the Leader of the House will return his seal of office when he ceases to be a Secretary of State or a Minister. There should be an absolute minimum of three staff for every Member of Parliament—one or two full-time in his constituency, and one in London. There is no other way.
Why did the Government establish an independent commission that had no motive for exaggerating our needs and then say that they could not manage to accept its recommendations? What was the point? I fear that it was to delay matters until after the general election.
This decision is one for the House to take. I hope that the Whips have not used their influence and that no Member will find that he or she has been left off a Select Committee because he or she voted the wrong way tonight. I invite the House to support the amendments. They were recommended by an independent commission of inquiry that received evidence from many right hon. and hon. Members, myself included, and reached a very measured view.

Mr. Stanley Orme: I intervene briefly to support the amendments. I do so as one who gave evidence to the Top Salaries Review Body, which studied at length the representations that it received. We referred these matters to the TSBR to take them out of the hands of Members of Parliament and, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), I find it extraordinary that the Government, have torn up its recommendations. That is not the way to deal with the issue.
We asked that body to investigate matters affecting Members of Parliament because that was in the interests of the House as a whole, and it would take the issue out of controversy. I remind Conservative Members that this is not a political issue. I have sat in Parliaments under Labour and Conservative Governments, when they have been pressurised not to implement increased facilities for right hon. and hon. Members because that might upset the norm or Government policy.
If we do not take the right decision this evening, we can forget any improvements for the remainder of this Parliament. That is the key issue. I believe that the amendments, especially amendment (a), will give us no more than what the report entitles us to—a "global" sum that would enable us to do the work that we must and want to do. I urge the House to support the amendments.

Mr. Peter Hain: Some hon. Members may feel that, as someone who has been in the House for a mere 15 months, I am being rather precocious in speaking tonight. I am comforted only by the fact that the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) and I—who were on opposite sides of the Grunwick picket line in 1977—are agreed on the issue: that must make us right.
I am very conscious that those who have been in the House much longer than I have become accustomed to arrangements that appal a new Member. Those arrangements are primitive—not least in regard to the resources and conditions that we expect our staff to endure. The issue is not, as the Government would have us believe, about Members' pay. An article published in The Sunday Times on 5 July, headed
MPs strike it rich at palace of perks",
said that we were alleged to have an annual income of £102,671. As we all know, that is a fantasy figure of which Del Boy would be proud: I hope that he will apply for the post of editor of The Sunday Times when a vacancy occurs.
The issue is not about pay restraint—restraint imposed on us, as Members of Parliament. If it were, the Leader of the House would not have presented us with a proposed increase of 14·5 per cent—nearly four times the rate of inflation; he would have presented us with an increase of about 4 per cent. But he did not do that: he plucked a figure out of the air, illogically and pragmatically, in the hope of buying a few votes against the amendments.
I urge the House to reject the hyprocrisy of editors who claim to be on the side of the people, and then deny us the rights and resources to check and challenge the Executive on behalf of the people. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) so eloquently put it, this is a constitutional issue which affects our right as legislators and our right to represent our constituents.
The Government want Members of Parliament to chase their tails, with very little time to consider the complexity of issues, the nature of political questions and the strategies and policies that we must pursue. Their proposals are almost designed to keep us under so much pressure that we cannot seriously do our jobs as parliamentary representatives, seeking to challenge the Executive and hold it accountable. Nor can we hold our constituents in the high regard in which we ought to hold them: we cannot give them the service that they deserve.
Let me briefly describe the experience of an hon. Member with a constituency office. That office, which had not been set up before I became a Member of Parliament for Neath, is now deluged with daily telephone calls from people with housing and social security problems—people without jobs who sometimes break down in tears. They are able to receive service on their doorsteps from their Member of Parliament or his staff; they could not do that under the old resourcing arrangements. We need extra resources, to ensure that every Member of Parliament can provide such a local service.
I believe that the Executive have launched a deliberate strategy to deny us the resources to do our jobs; to centralise power; to ensure that Members of Parliament are buried under an enormous case load; to ensure that they cannot scrutinise the Government; and to ensure that they are dog-tired and half-witted—that applies to me, at any rate. I ask hon. Members to imagine that they were able to act as normal people for once; to listen to others for once; to think properly for once; to go home and share their spare time with their spouses and talk to their children for once. They should imagine themselves having the time and the resources to be human beings for once. This issue goes beyond the question of Members of Parliament having the resources to do their job and to support their staff.
I urge the House to ensure that we get for our staff proper resources, pay and conditions so that we are able to

raise a great number of issues covered by the report but disregarded by the Executive, including the disaggregation of allowances to ensure that the staff of Members of Parliament are not compared with computers but are given proper pay and resources. I urge the House to support the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith).

Mr. Ernie Ross: As we get very close to making a decision on behalf of our staff, I ought to point out that the Leader of the House has won neither the argument nor the support of his hon. Friends. Having listened to the comments made by his hon. Friends and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) and for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), as well as to those of the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) who spoke so well on behalf of the staff, it is clear that the House does not believe the case made by the Leader of the House. That is because he did not have the courage to bring the report before the House early enough in this Parliament to enable hon. Members to have a full debate on its contents.
There is much in the Top Salaries Review Body's report that hon. Members, on behalf of their staff, would like to debate. All that we have been able to do tonight is to ensure that at least one of its recommendations is carried out—that Members of Parliament are given more financial support for their staff so that they can do their job. I hope that all hon. Members will support the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury.
A number of the recommendations in the report still need to be discussed. I hope that the Leader of the House will respond to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) and that he will allow the House to discuss the contents of the Top Salaries Review Body's report. Hon. Members want to take account of many of its recommendations, in particular the need to provide support for those Members of Parliament who have constituency offices and who require more finance to run them.
The Leader of the House has clearly misread the mood of the House. I hope that hon. Members in all parts of the House will join us in the Lobby and support the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury.

Mr. Clive Soley: I intend to make two points that have not yet been made. First, I am sorry that the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) said what he did, for I believe that he is a constituent of mine. I may remind him of that fact when he next writes to me, but, as my secretary is away on holiday, he may not get a quick reply. All I would say to him is that there is no reason why any hon. Member should not say to his or her constituents, or to any member of the press, that we need this money to do our job as parliamentarians. That is what the argument is about.

Mr. Walden: I have been asked by my constituents about this. I have told them that there is a limit to what I can do for them, with one secretary, but that I do not believe, in the wider interests of the country, that I should vote myself more money.

Mr. Soley: The answer is simple—the hon. Gentleman does not have to take the money. This is a matter not for the Government—I agree with everything that has been said about taking it out of the hands of the Government—but for Parliament.
Secondly, the Government tabled 1,000 amendments to their last Housing Bill, several hundred of which were tabled three days before the Bill returned to the Floor of the House. Every Back Bencher on the Standing Committee had to address those amendments and work out what they were to do. We took the advice of outside agencies. Therefore, we delegated our authority and power to outside agencies. We did so because there was no other way of getting through that spate of amendments. That applies to other issues, too. I shall end on that point.

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of the proceedings on the motion, MADAM SPEAKER proceeded to put the Question which she was directed to put at that hour, pursuant to Order [9 July].

Amendment proposed to the motion: (a) in sub-paragraph (a), leave out '£33,190' and insert '£39,960'.—[Mr. Chris Smith.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 324, Noes 197.

Division No. 70]
[12.09 am


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Adams, Mrs Irene
Canavan, Dennis


Ainger, Nick
Cann, Jamie


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Clapham, Michael


Allen, Graham
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)


Alton, David
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Clelland, David


Armstrong, Hilary
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Coffey, Ann


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Cohen, Harry


Austin-Walker, John
Colvin, Michael


Barnes, Harry
Connarty, Michael


Barron, Kevin
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Bates, Michael
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Battle, John
Corbett, Robin


Bayley, Hugh
Corbyn, Jeremy


Beckett, Margaret
Cousins, Jim


Beggs, Roy
Cox, Tom


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Cran, James


Bell, Stuart
Cryer, Bob


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Cummings, John


Benton, Joe
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Bermingham, Gerald
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Berry, Dr. Roger
Cunningham, Dr John (C'p'l'nd)


Betts, Clive
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)



Biffen, Rt Hon John
Dafis, Cynog


Blair, Tony
Dalyell, Tam


Blunkett, David
Darling, Alistair


Boateng, Paul
Davidson, Ian


Bowden, Andrew
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Boyce, Jimmy
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Boyes, Roland
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Bradley, Keith
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Day, Stephen


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Denham, John


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Dewar, Donald


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Dixon, Don


Burden, Richard
Dobson, Frank


Butler, Peter
Donohoe, Brian H.


Byers, Stephen
Dowd, Jim


Caborn, Richard
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Callaghan, Jim
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Dykes, Hugh


Campbell, Ronald (Blyth V)
Eagle, Ms Angela





Eastham, Ken
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Elletson, Harold
Jowell, Tessa


Enright, Derek
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Etherington, Bill
Keen, Alan


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C &amp; S)


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Kennedy, Jane (L'p'l Br'g'n)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Khabra, Piara S.


Fabricant, Michael
Kilfoyle, Peter


Fatchett, Derek
Kirkwood, Archy


Faulds, Andrew
Knapman, Roger


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Leighton, Ron


Flynn, Paul
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Lewis, Terry


Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)
Livingstone, Ken


Foster, Donald (Bath)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Foulkes, George
Llwyd, Elfyn


Fraser, John
Loyden, Eddie


Fyfe, Maria
Luff, Peter


Galbraith, Sam
Lynne, Ms Liz


Galloway, George
McAllion, John


Gapes, Mike
McAvoy, Thomas


Gardiner, Sir George

McCartney, Ian


Garrett, John
Macdonald, Calum


George, Bruce
McFall, John


Gerrard, Neil
McKelvey, William


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Mackinlay, Andrew


Godman, Dr Norman A.
McLeish, Henry


Godsiff, Roger
Maclennan, Robert


Golding, Mrs Llin
McMaster, Gordon


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
McNamara, Kevin


Gorst, John
McWilliam, John


Gould, Bryan
Madden, Max


Graham, Thomas
Maginnis, Ken


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Mahon, Alice


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Maitland, Lady Olga


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Mallon, Seamus


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Marek, Dr John


Grocott, Bruce
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Grylls, Sir Michael
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Gunnell, John
Martlew, Eric


Hain, Peter
Maxton, John


Hall, Mike
Meacher, Michael


Hanson, David
Meale, Alan


Hardy, Peter
Michael, Alun


Hargreaves, Andrew
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Harman, Ms Harriet
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Harvey, Nick
Milburn, Alan


Hawkins, Nicholas
Miller, Andrew


Hawksley, Warren
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Henderson, Doug
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Heppell, John
Morgan, Rhodri


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Morley, Elliot


Hinchliffe, David
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)


Hoey, Kate
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Home Robertson, John
Mowlam, Marjorie


Hood, Jimmy
Mudie, George


Hoon, Geoffrey
Mullin, Chris


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Murphy, Paul


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Nicholls, Patrick


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hoyle, Doug
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
O'Hara, Edward


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Olner, Bill


Hunter, Andrew
O'Neill, Martin


Hutton, John
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Illsley, Eric
Paisley, Rev Ian


Ingram, Adam
Patchett, Terry


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Pendry, Tom


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Pickthall, Colin


Jamieson, David
Pike, Peter L.


Janner, Greville
Pope, Greg


Johnston, Sir Russell
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)


Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Prescott, John


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Primarolo, Dawn


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Purchase, Ken






Quin, Ms Joyce
Stephen, Michael


Radice, Giles
Stern, Michael


Randall, Stuart
Stevenson, George


Rathbone, Tim
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Raynsford, Nick
Straw, Jack


Redmond, Martin
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Reid, Dr John
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Richards, Rod
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Tipping, Paddy


Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)
Trimble, David


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Turner, Dennis


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Tyler, Paul


Rogers, Allan
Vaz, Keith


Rooker, Jeff
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Rooney, Terry
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Walley, Joan


Ross, William (E Londonderry)
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Ruddock, Joan
Wareing, Robert N


Salmond, Alex
Watson, Mike


Sedgemore, Brian
Welsh, Andrew


Shaw, David (Dover)
Wicks, Malcolm


Sheerman, Barry
Wiggin, Jerry


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Wigley, Dafydd


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Short, Clare
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Simpson, Alan
Wilson, Brian


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Winnick, David


Smith, C. (Isl'ton S &amp; F'sbury)
Wise, Audrey


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Worthington, Tony


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Wray, Jimmy


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Wright, Tony


Soley, Clive
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Spearing, Nigel



Spellar, John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)
Mr. Joseph Ashton and Mr. Andrew F. Bennett.


Steen, Anthony



Steinberg, Gerry





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Aitken, Jonathan
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Alexander, Richard
Devlin, Tim


Amess, David
Dorrell, Stephen


Ancram, Michael
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Arbuthnot, James
Duncan, Alan


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Dunn, Bob


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Durant, Sir Anthony


Atkins, Robert
Eggar, Tim


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Evennett, David


Baldry, Tony
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Fishburn, John Dudley


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Forman, Nigel


Bellingham, Henry
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Forth, Eric


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Bowis, John
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Brandreth, Gyles
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Brazier, Julian
Freeman, Roger


Bright, Graham
Gale, Roger


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Gallie, Phil


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thorpes)
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Burns, Simon
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Burt, Alistair
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hague, William


Carrington, Matthew
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie


Carttiss, Michael
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hanley, Jeremy


Chaplin, Mrs Judith
Hannam, Sir John


Chapman, Sydney
Harris, David


Churchill, Mr
Hayes, Jerry


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Coe, Sebastian
Hendry, Charles


Conway, Derek
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Horam, John


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hordern, Sir Peter


Couchman, James
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Curry, David (Skipton &amp; Ripon)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)





Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Patnick, Irvine


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Patten, Rt Hon John


Jack, Michael
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Jenkin, Bernard
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Redwood, John


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Riddick, Graham


Jones, Robert B. (W H'f'rdshire)
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Key, Robert
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Kilfedder, Sir James
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Sackville, Tom


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Leigh, Edward
Sims, Roger


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Soames, Nicholas


Lidington, David
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lightbown, David
Spink, Dr Robert


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Sproat, Iain


Lord, Michael
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Stewart, Allan


MacKay, Andrew
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Maclean, David
Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Str'gf'd)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Madel, David
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Major, Rt Hon John
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Malone, Gerald
Thurnham, Peter


Mans, Keith
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Marlow, Tony
Tracey, Richard


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Tredinnick, David


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Trend, Michael



Mates, Michael
Trotter, Neville


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Twinn, Dr Ian


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Viggers, Peter


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Merchant, Piers
Walden, George


Milligan, Stephen
Waller, Gary


Mills, Iain
Ward, John


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Moate, Roger
Wells, Bowen


Monro, Sir Hector
Wheeler, Sir John


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Whitney, Ray


Moss, Malcolm
Whittingdale, John


Needham, Richard
Widdecombe, Ann


Nelson, Anthony
Wilshire, David


Neubert, Sir Michael
Wood, Timothy


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Yeo, Tim


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Norris, Steve



Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Tellers for the Noes:


Oppenheim, Phillip
Mr. Robert Hughes and Mr. Tim Boswell.


Ottaway, Richard



Paice, James

Question accordingly agreed to.

Amendments made to the motion: (c), in sub-paragraph (b), leave out '£8,298' and insert '£9,990'.

(d), in sub-paragraph (b), leave out '£33,190' and insert '£39,960'.—[Mr. Chris Smith.]

Motion made, and Question put, That the main Question, as amended, be agreed to:—

The House divided: Ayes 317, Noes 186.

Division No. 71]
[12.24 am


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Alton, David


Adams, Mrs Irene
Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)


Ainger, Nick
Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Armstrong, Hilary


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy


Allen, Graham
Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)






Austin-Walker, John
Dykes, Hugh


Barnes, Harry
Eagle, Ms Angela


Barron, Kevin
Eastham, Ken


Bates, Michael
Elletson, Harold


Battle, John
Enright, Derek


Bayley, Hugh
Etherington, Bill


Beckett, Margaret
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Beggs, Roy
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Bell, Stuart
Fabricant, Michael


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Fatchett, Derek


Benton, Joe
Faulds, Andrew


Bermingham, Gerald
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Berry, Dr. Roger
Flynn, Paul


Betts, Clive
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Blair, Tony
Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)


Blunkett, David
Foster, Donald (Bath)


Boateng, Paul
Foulkes, George


Bowden, Andrew
Fraser, John


Boyce, Jimmy
Fyfe, Maria


Boyes, Roland
Galbraith, Sam


Bradley, Keith
Galloway, George


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Gapes, Mike


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Gardiner, Sir George


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Garrett, John


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
George, Bruce


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Gerrard, Neil


Burden, Richard
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Butler, Peter
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Byers, Stephen
Godsiff, Roger


Caborn, Richard
Golding, Mrs Llin


Callaghan, Jim
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Gorst, John


Campbell, Ronald (Blyth V)
Gould, Bryan




Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Graham, Thomas


Canavan, Dennis
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Cann, Jamie
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Churchill, Mr
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clapham, Michael
Grocott, Bruce


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Grylls, Sir Michael


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Gunnell, John


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hain, Peter


Clelland, David
Hall, Mike


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hanson, David


Coffey, Ann
Hardy, Peter


Cohen, Harry
Hargreaves, Andrew


Colvin, Michael
Harman, Ms Harriet


Connarty, Michael
Harvey, Nick


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hawkins, Nicholas


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Henderson, Doug


Corbett, Robin
Heppell, John


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Cousins, Jim
Hinchliffe, David


Cox, Tom
Hoey, Kate


Cran, James
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Cryer, Bob
Home Robertson, John


Cummings, John
Hood, Jimmy


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hoon, Geoffrey


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cunningham, Dr John (C'p'l'nd)
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Hoyle, Doug


Dafis, Cynog
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Dalyell, Tam
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Darling, Alistair
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Davidson, Ian
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Hunter, Andrew


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Hutton, John


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Illsley, Eric


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Ingram, Adam


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Day, Stephen
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Denham, John
Jamieson, David


Dewar, Donald
Janner, Greville


Dixon, Don
Johnston, Sir Russell


Dobson, Frank
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Donohoe, Brian H.
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Dowd, Jim
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)





Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Jowell, Tessa
Prescott, John


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Primarolo, Dawn




Keen, Alan
Purchase, Ken


Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C &amp; S)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Khabra, Piara S.
Radice, Giles


Kilfoyle, Peter
Randall, Stuart


Kirkwood, Archy
Rathbone, Tim


Knapman, Roger
Raynsford, Nick


Leighton, Ron
Redmond, Martin


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Reid, Dr John


Lewis, Terry
Richards, Rod


Livingstone, Ken
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Llwyd, Elfyn
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Loyden, Eddie
Rogers, Allan


Luff, Peter
Rooker, Jeff


Lynne, Ms Liz
Rooney, Terry


McAllion, John
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McAvoy, Thomas
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


McCartney, Ian
Ruddock, Joan


Macdonald, Calum
Salmond, Alex


McFall, John
Sedgemore, Brian


McKelvey, William
Shaw, David (Dover)


Mackinlay, Andrew
Sheerman, Barry


McLeish, Henry
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Maclennan, Robert
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


McMaster, Gordon
Short, Clare


McNamara, Kevin
Simpson, Alan




McWilliam, John
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Madden, Max
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S &amp; F'sbury)


Maginnis, Ken
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Mahon, Alice
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Maitland, Lady Olga
Soley, Clive


Mallon, Seamus
Spearing, Nigel


Marek, Dr John
Spellar, John


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Steen, Anthony


Martlew, Eric
Steinberg, Gerry


Maxton, John
Stephen, Michael


Meacher, Michael
Stern, Michael


Meale, Alan
Stevenson, George


Michael, Alun
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Straw, Jack


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Milburn, Alan
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Miller, Andrew
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Tipping, Paddy


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Trimble, David


Morgan, Rhodri
Turner, Dennis


Morley, Elliot
Tyler, Paul


Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)
Vaz, Keith


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Mowlam, Marjorie
Walley, Joan


Mudie, George
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Mullin, Chris
Wareing, Robert N


Murphy, Paul
Watson, Mike


Nicholls, Patrick
Welsh, Andrew


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Wicks, Malcolm


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Wiggin, Jerry


O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Wigley, Dafydd


O'Brien, William (Normanton)

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


O'Hara, Edward
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Olner, William
Wilson, Brian


O'Neill, Martin
Winnick, David


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wise, Audrey


Paisley, Rev Ian
Worthington, Tony


Patchett, Terry
Wray, Jimmy


Pendry, Tom
Wright, Dr Tony


Pickthall, Colin



Pike, Peter L.
Tellers for the Ayes:


Pope, Greg
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett and Mr. Joseph Ashton.


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)



Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Amess, David


Aitken, Jonathan
Ancram, Michael


Alexander, Richard
Arbuthnot, James






Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Jenkin, Bernard


Atkins, Robert
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Jones, Robert B. (W H'f'rdshire)


Baldry, Tony
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Bellingham, Henry
Key, Robert


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Kilfedder, Sir James


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Kirkhope, Timothy


Bowis, John
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Brandreth, Gyles
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Brazier, Julian
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Bright, Graham
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thorpes)
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Burns, Simon
Leigh, Edward


Burt, Alistair
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Lidington, David


Carrington, Matthew
Lightbown, David


Carttiss, Michael
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Lord, Michael


Chaplin, Mrs Judith
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Chapman, Sydney
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
MacKay, Andrew


Conway, Derek
Maclean, David


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Madel, David


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Major, Rt Hon John


Couchman, James
Malone, Gerald


Curry, David (Skipton &amp; Ripon)
Mans, Keith


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Marlow, Tony


Devlin, Tim
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Dorrell, Stephen
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Mates, Michael


Duncan, Alan
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Eggar, Tim
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Merchant, Piers


Evennett, David
Milligan, Stephen


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Mills, Iain


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Fishburn, John Dudley
Moate, Roger


Forman, Nigel
Monro, Sir Hector


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Forth, Eric
Moss, Malcolm


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Needham, Richard


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Nelson, Anthony


Freeman, Roger
Neubert, Sir Michael


Gale, Roger
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Gallie, Phil
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Norris, Steve


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Oppenheim, Phillip


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Ottaway, Richard


Hague, William
Paice, James


Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie
Patnick, Irvine


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Patten, Rt Hon John


Hanley, Jeremy
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hannam, Sir John
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Harris, David
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Hayes, Jerry
Redwood, John


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Riddick, Graham


Hendry, Charles
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Horam, John
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Hordern, Sir Peter
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Sackville, Tom


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Jack, Michael
Sims, Roger





Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Viggers, Peter


Soames, Nicholas
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Spencer, Sir Derek
Walden, George


Sproat, Iain
Waller, Gary


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Ward, John




Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Stewart, Allan
Wells, Bowen


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Wheeler, Sir John


Taylor, John M. (Solihull)
Whitney, Ray


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Whittingdale, John


Thornton, Sir Malcolm
Widdecombe, Ann


Thurnham, Peter
Wilshire, David


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Yeo, Tim


Tracey, Richard
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Tredinnick, David



Trend, Michael
Tellers for the Noes:


Trotter, Neville
Mr. Tim Boswell and Mr. Timothy Wood.


Twinn, Dr Ian

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That, in the opinion of this House—
(1) The limit on the office costs allowance (subject to what follows) should be—

(a)for the year beginning in 1992, £39,960;
(b) for any quarter in the year beginning in 1993, the sum of £9,990 (that is, a quarter, to the nearest pound, of £39,960) but increased by any percentage increase by which the standard secretarial salary applicable in that year has increased compared with the standard secretarial salary applicable in the preceding year; and
(c) for any quarter in any subsequent year, the limit for a quarter in the preceding year but increased by any percentage increase by which the standard secretarial salary applicable in the subsequent year has increased compared with the standard secretarial salary applicable in the preceding year.
(2) The limit in relation to Mr. David Blunkett should be 2.57 times that determined in accordance with paragraph (1) above.
(3) Any limit determined in accordance with this Resolution should be calculated to the nearest pound.
(4) In this Resolution—

(a) "year" means a period of twelve months beginning with 1st April;
(b) "quarter" means a period of three months beginning with 1st April, 1st July, 1st October or 1st January.
(c) "the standard secretarial salary" means an amount consisting of the Standard Pay Point for a Senior Personal Secretary in the Home Civil Service in London and the Inner London Weighting.
(5) For the purposes of this Resolution the amount of the standard secretarial salary applicable in any year should be the amount specified by the Treasury as applicable in that year.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. When the result of the first Division was announced, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster indicated with his fingers that the Division was for money only. For the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, a senior Cabinet Minister, to indicate in that way is wrong. The Government would be the first people to criticise Opposition Members doing the same. I know that you, Madam Speaker, deprecate such behaviour, whether verbal or otherwise. I believe that it is wrong.

Madam Speaker: That is hardly a point of order for the Chair. Unbecoming gestures are sometimes made in the House. I deprecate them. My old eyes must have been a little sleepy tonight, because I did not notice the gesture.

PETITIONS

Hedgehog Protection

Mr. Elliot Morley: I wish to present a petition on behalf of my constituents and the Hedgehog Protection Campaign. [Interruption.] This is an important issue. It arises from an unfortunate incident in Pocklington in North Humberside of deliberate cruelty to hedgehogs.
The campaign has been organised because hedgehogs and other wild mammals are not covered by any cruelty legislation. The petition was organised by Mrs. Bell of 363 Messingham road, Bottesford. It calls for a change in the law to protect such wild animals, as the worthy Wild Mammals (Protection) Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) would have done if it had been successful.
With permission, I should like to read the petition. It says:
To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of residents in Glanford and Scunthorpe sheweth
That wild animals such as Hedgehogs are being subjected to deliberate acts of cruelty.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House will bring forward a Bill that will make cruelty towards wild animals such as Hedgehogs illegal.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray &amp;c.

To lie upon the Table.

Poll Tax (Lambeth)

Ms. Kate Hoey: I have pleasure in presenting a petition from the residents of Carey gardens and Patmore estate, which are in the unfortunate situation of crossing the border between the London boroughs of Wandsworth and Lambeth. The petitioners are concerned about a fundamental injustice. They have to pay high rents and high poll tax because they pay poll tax to Lambeth and rent to Wandsworth. That does not seem to make sense, there is no apparent geographical reason for it, and they have the worst of both worlds.
I therefore present
to the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
The Humble Petition of the residents of Carey Gardens and Patmore Estate on the Border of the London Boroughs of Lambeth and Wandsworth …
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House take note of the anomalous situation of those who live in Carey Gardens and Patmore Estate, who have to pay high rent to Wandsworth and high poll tax to Lambeth, and resolves to take urgent action to relieve us of this unfair financial burden.

To lie upon the Table.

Hedgehog Protection

Mr. Hugh Bayley: My constituents are also outraged at the treatment of hedgehogs and by the same incident which provoked my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) to present a petition.
I want to present a petition from Mrs. Pat Murgatroyd, who runs a hedgehog haven in 43 Foxwood lane, York. Her petition is supported by 888 signatures from the York area. The petition protests
That four fifteen and sixteen year old boys, accused of causing unnecessary suffering to a hedgehog by dropping rocks on it, kicking it and beating it with a fence post and thereby breaking almost every bone in its body, walked free from a juvenile court in Pocklington, Humberside in April 1992 because the Protection of Animals Act 1911 covers only cruelty to captive creatures and it was judged that this hedgehog had not been captured.
Wherefore your Petitioner prays that your honourable House bring about an Act of Parliament which will give hedgehogs legal protection against deliberate acts of cruelty.

To lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — RN Stores Depot, Eaglescliffe

Mr. Frank Cook: I seek leave to present a petition on behalf of some of my constituents, namely, A. Dudman of Priory gardens, Norton, C. Davies of Northpark, Billingham, B. Naughton of Hillside road, Norton and others.
It is a parallel, formalised edition of a less orderly petition which was presented at 12.30 pm yesterday to No. 10 Downing street for the attention of the Prime Minister. It refers to proposals to relocate 180 key jobs, covering core management and control procedures at the royal naval stores depot at Eaglescliffe in Stockton-on-Tees. Those proposals make no sense, in terms of efficiency, efficacy, organisation or economics. The proposals run directly counter to commitments said to have been given by the Prime Minister in promising departmental jobs to the north-east. It would seem that the trawl that he promised has succeeded in doing no more than bringing a cake factory and the suggestion that those 180 jobs should be removed to the south-west, to Bath.
In the north-east we have the proper equipment and qualified staff to cover the jobs. However one views the proposals it makes no sense to move the jobs, the staff or the equipment to the south-west.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House urge the Secretary of State for Defence to abandon the proposal to transfer the 180 jobs from Eaglescliffe.

And your Petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray, &c.

To lie upon the Table.

Ms. Marjorie Mowlam: I, too, should like to present a petition on behalf of a number of my constituents about the loss of 180 jobs as a result of job movements from Eaglescliffe to the south. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) said, that decision is contrary to current Government policy, which states that they are interested in bringing jobs to the north-east—the exact opposite is happening. On behalf of my petitioners I pray that


your honourable House urge the Secretary of State for Defence to abandon the proposal to transfer the 180 jobs from Eaglescliffe.

To lie upon the Table.

Mr. Stuart Bell: I rise on behalf my constituent and petitioner, Michael Bateman of 7 Ustead road, Middlesbrough, who also makes a humble petition on behalf of the work force of the Royal Naval stores depot at Eaglescliffe.
The petition opposes the closure of those particular works and the proposition of Her Majesty's Government to create a centralised naval support command in Bath. That would necessitate the loss of 180 jobs in the royal naval stores depot at Eaglescliffe near Stockton-on-Tees in the county of Cleveland.
I have presented the petition to draw attention to the fact that we are in a recession that is deep and deepening, which is causing great dismay to the people of Cleveland. Their great fear is that the loss of those 180 jobs will add to that dismay.

To lie upon the Table.

Mr. Alan Milburn: In common with my hon. Friends the Members for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam), for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) and for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell), I too present a petition on behalf of my constituents who work at the Eaglescliffe royal navy stores depot.
As my hon. Friends have said, 180 jobs are under threat as a result of the decision to transfer those jobs from Eaglescliffe to Bath. That decision reverses the normal mechanism of regional policy which moves jobs from the south to the north.
Five of my constituents have signed the petition, Brian Hildon, Ruth Cooke, Barry Clarke, Jean Davies and Christine Kane. Yesterday. a petition with 6,000 names was presented to 10 Downing street. The decision has excited a great deal of concern in my constituency and in the general area. It is a matter of great import. I beg to present that petition.

To lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — Local Government Pensioners (Scotland)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. David Davis.]

Mr. Norman Hogg: I am grateful for the opportunity to address the House, and I shall seek to be as brief as possible. I am also grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland for being here to answer the debate.
The purpose of the debate is to ask the Government to ensure that local government pensioners in Scotland receive outstanding sums due to them for the period from April 1987 to March 1989. The underpayment was due to a computer error in calculating the retail prices index, which was reported as 0·1 per cent. too low for most of the period from February 1986 to December 1987. As a result, local government and other public service pensioners received cost of living increases to their pensions which were less than they should have been for the period from April 1987 to March 1989.
The cost of living increase agreed to operate from April 1989 included a factor to adjust for the computer error from that date onwards, but still left outstanding the underpayment for the period from April 1987 to March 1989. The sum involved was more than £7 million.
In England and Wales, local authorities were able to make retrospective compensatory payments at an average rate calculated by the Department of Environment to he £2 per £1,000 of pension. The Secretary of State for the Environment has authority under the Local Government Finance Act 1982 to sanction certain payments by local authorities that they would otherwise be unable legally to make. He said that he would be prepared to do so in this case.
The Secretary of State for Scotland has no similar statutory powers. As a result, while local government pensioners in England and Wales have received some compensation, those in Scotland have not. In the case of some services for which the Government are themselves the paymaster, a lump sum has been given to one or more charities. It is understood that it will be used to assist needy pensioners or their dependants, but not necessarily the people who were deprived of the money due to the computer error. That solution was not acceptable to the employers or the relevant trade unions representing the pensioners in Scotland.
The local government officers' union, NALGO, raised the matter at an early stage with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, and I should make it clear that at no time have COSLA or individual local authorities in Scotland shown any reluctance to pay the pensioners what is morally due to them. Their problem is that they have no legal authority to pay.
In September 1990, COSLA formally raised the matter with the Scottish Office superannuation division. The reply on 2 December 1991 held out no prospect of legislation and suggested that local authorities might find some other type of solution, such as donations to charities. It said:
The Convention's finance committee may wish to consider whether they could recommend to Scottish local authorities that they should adopt a solution on these lines.
It is not surprising that COSLA did not feel able to recommend that local authorities should give to charity moneys that morally belonged to other people.
What I now say is embarrassing, and I apologise to the Minister, the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro). On 27 July 1991 he wrote to the then Secretary of State for Scotland and received a reply from his right hon. Friend on 31 August 1991. But the Secretary of State was no more helpful to his hon. Friend than the Scottish Office had been to COSLA. He acknowledged that
in Scotland … the local authorities would also have preferred to make individual payments",
but saw no prospect of legislation to enable them to do so.
On 31 October 1991, I tabled an early-day motion, supported by a number of other hon. Members, calling on the Government to find a way of compensating those involved for their error, albeit an unintentional one. That request met with no response, which is why I initiated this debate.
This is a matter of equity. Due to a Government error—nobody suggests that there has been any ill intent—local government pensioners in Scotland have been deprived of sums due to them. Due to a quirk of legislation, pensioners in England and Wales—but not those in Scotland—have been paid. Now, surely, the Government having made an error, it is for the Government to find a way to correct it.
In his letter to the hon. Member for Dumfries to which I referred, the then Secretary of State made what seems an extraordinary statement when he wrote:
the matter is one to which the local authorities themselves must seek a solution.
Why the local authorities? It was not their computer that made the error in the first place.
We are used to the Government stopping local authorities doing what they should be allowed to do, such as spending the income from council house sales to provide more housing. Here, we seem to be getting encouragement from the Government for local authorities to do what they really have no right to do. If they pay the pensioners, they will, as things stand, be acting outside their powers and therefore laying themselves open to audit penalties.
If, on the other hand, they follow the suggestion of making a donation to charity, they will be disposing of someone else's money without their authority. What right have they to do that, and how would it help the pensioners? No doubt the Minister will inform the House that the payments of which the pensioners have been deprived are very small, and in many cases that is true, because the average former local government officer pensioner in Scotland receives only £2,014 per annum. But I hope the Minister will agree that the amount is not the point. If we do not take £5 or £10 seriously today, we shall be asked to disregard £20 on some other issue tomorrow, and £30 next year if inflation does not come down as promised. In any case, what may seem a small sum to those of us in employment has far greater significance to pensioners on small incomes.
There can be no excuse for depriving people of money that is due to them. It is a strange inversion of justice, logic and even blatant common sense to place the burden of remedying the error on the injured party or on a completely innocent third party instead of the perpetrator. Moreover, there can be no case for treating Scottish local government pensioners differently and less well than those in England and Wales.
I hope that I have made the point clearly to the Minister, and I look forward to his response.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Sir Hector Monro): I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) for raising this question. It may seem somewhat dated, but it has been a source of grievance to local government pensioners and to NALGO for some time. The issues involved are very technical, but none the less real to the pensioners affected. I am grateful to the hon. Member for the opportunity to have them debated, even at this very late stage. I anticipated that he would recall my correspondence of a year ago with the Secretary of State. He was kind enough to read out the gist of the reply that I received. In a way, I am a poacher turned gamekeeper, but he will appreciate that I wanted to see the issue resolved, as he does now.
The grievance felt by the pensioners involved goes back a long way—some five years, in fact. As the hon. Gentleman explained, it derives from an error in the calculation of the retail prices index. Local government pensioners, like other public service pensioners, have their pensions increased annually in line with the RPI. That is a very worthwhile and much valued benefit. It means that those pensioners, unlike many others, have a guarantee that the value of their pensions will be maintained.
The consequence of the RPI error, however, was that those pensioners lost by a small amount. The same applied to state pensioners and other public service pensioners who receive index-linked pensions. For two years—from April 1987 to March 1989—the inflation-proofing element in their pensions was less than it should have been. The shortfall was quite small, but no doubt significant to those affected. It amounted to roughly 0·1 per cent. of the full amount that would have been payable but for the error, and, as I have said, it lasted for two years.
From April 1989, the pensions were restored to their full inflation-proofed values, so in one sense, the matter has been put right. That is a most important point, because it means that the effects of the error are long overtaken and, in many cases, long forgotten.
The amounts involved were therefore not very large and do not recur, and I doubt whether anyone would claim that hardship is involved. But those pensioners who have received nothing by way of compensation nevertheless feel a real sense of grievance. The reason they have not received any compensation cannot, however, be said to be the fault of the Government.
When the error was discovered, the Government felt that whatever practical and reasonable steps were necessary to right the situation should be taken. It did not seem right that the windfall should be to the Exchequer, and thus the public generally. Individual payments were made in respect of the state pensions involved. That was administratively fairly simple to do because the amounts involved were standard, but occupational pensions were a different matter, and in many cases they are additional to state pensions.
In the occupational pension sector, the size of the pension varies from person to person and each pension would have had to have been individually recalculated. The cost to the taxpayer in doing so would have far ourweighed the value to the pensioners involved.
Of course I accept that the pensions of many of the people involved were quite small. Where that was the case, the shortfall during the two years from April 1987 to


March 1989 would also have been small, but would have assumed greater significance. The local government scheme in particular pays many small pensions, partly because it places few restrictions on which employees can join the scheme. It covers a wide range of professions and occupations, from the chief executive down to the lowest paid manual worker. Many move from job to job and typically do not have long periods of pensionable service. That in turn means that the average pension is low in comparison with schemes that cater for a particular profession or career.
The average amount lost by local government pensioners because of the error was of the order of £4 over two years—less than 10p a week.
In other occupational pension schemes, including those for which the Government are directly responsible, such as those covering the civil service and the national health service, there are also many retired members on quite small pensions. Many occupational pension schemes outside the public service do not guarantee inflation proofing at all. Most of the pensioners concerned would also be in receipt of state pensions, where the shortfall has been made good by the Government.
In many cases the state pension would comprise the greater part of people's income. Nevertheless, the Government felt that occupational pensioners for whom they were responsible should not lose out. But they also felt that a better and more cost-effective way of applying the money for their benefit than making individual payments should be found. As the hon. Gentleman said, their solution was to pay the money to charitable organisations supporting retired and needy public servants.
That was the approach taken in respect of retired civil servants, retired teachers, former employees of the health service and others. It was also the approach taken in the case of police pensioners, whose pensions are paid by local authorities,. I have no reason to believe that those pensioners found that approach unacceptable. It may well have channelled the relatively small amounts of money involved to the most needy.
Like police pensions, pensions payable to former local government officials and manual employees under the local government scheme are the responsibility of the local authorities, not the Government. I understand that local authorities in England, and at least one in Scotland, which, coincidentally, happens to be my own in Dumfries and Galloway region, have chosen to make individual payments to all pensioners affected. The hon. Gentleman pointed that out. The Government have not objected to that. It is a matter for the local authorities. In England, the Department of the Environment can formally sanction such payments, but the Scottish Office has no such powers.
I know that the hon. Gentleman thinks that a small, one-clause, three-line Bill would be adequate, and perhaps

it would. If he can convince the business managers that that is so, so be it, but he knows as well as I do that it is difficult to find a slot for legislation, even for something brief and non-controversial.
The hon. Gentleman appears to he looking to the Government to require those local authorities in Scotland that have not made individual payments to do so. But, as I said, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no powers to do so. It is a matter for the local authorities. In any case, the Government do not believe that that solution best meets the problem. They have taken a different route in the case of pensions for which they are responsible, as have local authorities in the case of police pensioners. The Government have therefore shown the way, and I have no reason to believe that local authorities could not follow a similar route if they chose to do so.
The Secretary of State's position has been made very clear in correspondence and explained to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. I do not know what recent consideration, if any, local authorities have given to the question. They have shown no inclination of which I am aware to follow the Government's example. If they want to work out schemes on the lines of those that apply to other public service pensioners in Scotland, it is for them to consider doing so, but the Secretary of State has no power to dictate to them what course of action they should pursue.
The local government scheme is a very good pension scheme; it is available to a wide range of people in different professions and occupations; and it is well administered by the local authorities. The Government have, however, ensured through their pension reforms that choice in pension provision is available. Public service employees now have the right to opt out and make their own pension arrangements if they so wish. For employees who choose the local government scheme—perhaps the vast bulk—they can have confidence that the funds are well run, that their benefits are secure, and, of course, that they will not lose their value because of inflation. It is a pity, however, that the source of grievance over the small amounts lost due to the RPI error has not been dealt with. I have great sympathy for the people involved and many of the points made by the hon. Gentleman. I believe, however, that it is to the local authorities themselves that he should look for a solution.
There is no legal obligation on local authorities to make payments—they paid the amounts required of them by the pensions increase orders. They may feel a moral obligation, however, not to use for other purposes money which, but for the error, would have gone to pensioners. If they do, they should look for a solution within existing legislation, as the Government did. I certainly hope that they do.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at six minutes past One o'clock.